- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 10:27:49 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote: > > > 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... http://[2002:ac20:ad::ac20:ad]/whatever for my laptop, for example... http://[::1]/whatever for loopback interface > > 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. > Okay > 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. >> > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 15:28:34 UTC