Re: URI schemes - is widget: OK, but xri: not?

This has been an "unusual" process to say the least.  Registration of XRI as
a URI scheme has never been proposed!  Not formally. That's IETF turf and it
usually does not get debated  in a W3C forum (certainly not this
exhaustively).

 Leaving aside all of the technical issues, why not just submit the
registration  request (see  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395) and let the
debate over "XRI as a URI scheme" play out  where it is supposed to.

The recent OASIS vote on XRI failed probably because some people thought
(perhaps through faulty reasoning) that implicit in a "yes" vote was a vote
for an XRI URI scheme (and by "some people" I don't necessarily mean those
voting, but rather, those influencing those voting).  Perhaps if the URI
scheme issue were to be solved in advance, and XRI reballoted, it would
almost certainly be approved.

--Ray

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Schleiff, Marty" <marty.schleiff@boeing.com>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 6:08 PM
Subject: URI schemes - is widget: OK, but xri: not?



Hi All,

I haven't seen any messages complaining about a URI scheme for widget:. I've
seen plenty of messages complaining about a URI scheme for xri:.

Does the TAG consider a new scheme for widget: to be justified?

If so, then could someone please explain why a widget: scheme is
justifiable, but an xri: scheme is not?

Thanks,

Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP
Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist
Information Security - Technical Controls
(206) 679-5933