Re: [Uri-review] Review request: widget URI scheme

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 -

Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 12:37:56 UTC