- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:37:15 +0900
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On 2012/01/20 19:27, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-01-20 11:23, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: >> I'm not sure what the difference would be between having e.g., >> "web+acme:hello" and "web:acme:hello", except for a multi-level >> structure where potential inventors of a new protocol/scheme get more >> confused than necessary. >> ... > > The difference is mainly process: "web+" needs coordination with and > approval by the IETF IRI WG, while "web:" is simply one additional new > URI scheme. I fully agree that for "web+", some process is needed. But if there's agreement on the technical need and solution (which we definitely don't have at this moment in time), then the process issue isn't really a big deal. Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 10:37:59 UTC