- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 14:37:27 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: uri-review@ietf.org, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Hi Julian, all, very sorry for the long delay in replying, I was unfortunately caught up in other things and am now catching up. On Feb 26, 2010, at 13:56 , Julian Reschke wrote: > A few things that I stumbled upon on a quick read: > > - The registration does not include a reference to the spec that actually defines the URI scheme Duh. Talk about forgetting the obvious! It's now there. > - Neither the registration nor the spec actually define the syntax (I couldn't see an ABNF...). You probably can re-use the grammar in RFC 3986, but you really should state that. I may be mistaken but my understanding from RFC4395 leads me to believe that reusing the generic syntax (as indicated) is a good thing. > - It appears that the spec tries to define things in terms of IRIs; my understanding is that what you need to define are URIs (plain ASCII, as per RFC 3986), and then optionally include additional information about how to map from/to IRIs. I tried to look for examples of this but failed, which makes me wonder if I'm misunderstanding the request. Would you happen to have a pointer handy? Thanks a lot for your comments! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 12:37:56 UTC