Shane McCarron wrote: > Actually, I think it is a huge deal and buys us nothing. The CURIE spec > is in last call, and we cannot diverge from that. We have no such > comment against the CURIE spec. If we did, I am confident we would > reject it because, as we all agree, a CURIE is not a new URI mechanism. > CURIEs are never used over the wire, so they do not need to have their > own scheme. As to future-proofing.... it is already future proof. The > only situation where a bracket will ever be a legal character in a URI > is in the hostname portion (for IPv6 addresses). And a hostname cannot Really? Just out of a technical curiosity: how would that look in IPv6? I did not know that... But, regardless, you answered my only pending question in my original response, so I would agree we should not make this change and give a proper answer to Jonathan. Ivan > be there without a scheme... so there cannot ever be a conflict. I do > not think this is anything we need to worry about. We have bigger fish > to fry. > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 15:19:37 UTC