- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:45:14 -0500
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: public-uri-cg@w3.org
On Sat, 2003-09-13 at 12:59, Larry Masinter wrote: > > "Authors of specifications SHOULD avoid introducing new URI schemes > when > > existing schemes can be used to meet the goals of the specifications." > > -- > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030627/#pr-new-scheme-expensive > > > > "To help parties know when they are referring to the same resource, it > > follows that URI producers should be conservative about the number of > > different URIs they produce for the same resource." > > -- > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030627/#identifiers-comparison > > Since people with URI scheme proposals who want 'official' endorsement > will look to the IETF and not necessarily to the 'Web Architecture' > document, should there be a joint IETF/W3C activity to update the > URI registration BCP and guidelines documents to include this new > advice? Seems in order, yes... > Update 2718? Which one is that? ah yes... Guidelines for new URL Schemes ... need to cite that under "How do I register a new URI scheme?" in http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSchemes Note that I'm moving the parts of http://www.w3.org/Addressing/* that are supposed to represent community consensus into the ESW Wiki to subject them to WikiConsensus. I'm also reviewing the URI CG schedule http://www.w3.org/2001/12/URI/#Schedule It's not going very quickly, but I hope you can see that there's movement... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 3 October 2003 02:13:45 UTC