- From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:57:28 -0600
- To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
- CC: public-iri@w3.org
<hat type='individual'/> On 8/22/11 10:13 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > 23.08.2011 2:09, Chris Weber wrote: >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/73> >> >> Is there any reason to pull the text in section 3.8 that relates to >> organization-specific scheme names? It seems a harmless >> recommendation to me, but maybe a sentence or two on the historical >> significance would help readers understand why the recommendation was >> made. > > If we're revising RFC 4395, we should note and remove any outdated or > non-usable procedures/advices. I'd like these several sentences were > deleted, and organizations that develop their schemes registered them > according to the general rules. In the issue tracker, Larry Masinter commented: I don't think there have been any such registrations or even scheme names. It's not a bad idea to use faceted scheme names for private application URI schemes, but just orgname.application.purpose or even orgname.purpose or applicationname.purpose would also be OK and useful. I agree with Mykyta that we might as well remove this code path if no one has ever used it. Let organizations use their best judgment about names for organization-specific schemes. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 20:57:57 UTC