Shane McCarron wrote: > > > 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... Wow. It looks ugly:-) Thanks Ivan > 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. >>> >> > -- 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 15:32:00 UTC