Re: [iri] #73: Decide on organization-specific schemes

On 2011/12/10 14:42, "Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" wrote:
> 09.12.2011 20:37, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> <hat type='individual'/>

>>> The reason is that there were no actual usages. But now, there is a use
>>> (see http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/com-eventbrite-
>>> attendee), as reported at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-
>>> review/current/msg01548.html.
>>>
>>> I guess we should restore this text.
>> Seems fine to me.
>
> Well, I really think there is no point in distinguishing between some
> vendor schemes and other schemes, as it's done with media types. I think
> developing and registering the scheme according to usual naming rules
> should be fine in this case. So my proposal remains the same.

My take is somewhat different. There may not be as much of a need, or 
tendency, to get vendors to use vendor-specific scheme names. But I 
think there is no harm in keeping this option open for vendors who 
indeed want something vendor-specific, and to have a suggestion in the 
spec as how these would look. It can be very helpful for a vendor, and 
for the community at large, to see the suggestion in the spec and just 
go for it, rather than to have prolonged discussions.

Regards,   Martin.

Received on Saturday, 10 December 2011 10:18:03 UTC