- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:59:38 +0100
On 26.11.2010 16:55, Brett Zamir wrote: > On 11/26/2010 7:13 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 26.11.2010 11:54, Brett Zamir wrote: >>> ... >>> My apologies for the lack of clarity on the approval process. I see all >>> the protocols listed with them, so I wasn't clear. >>> >>> In any case, I still see the need for both types being reserved (and for >>> their subnamespaces targeted by the protocol handler), in that >>> namespacing is built into the XRI unlike for informal URNs which could >>> potentially conflict. >>> ... >> >> I'm still not sure what you mean by "reserve" and what that would mean >> for the spec and for implementations. >> > I just mean that authors should not use already registered protocols > except as intended, thinking that they can use any which protocol name > they like (e.g., the Urn Manufacturers Company using "urn" for its > categorization scheme). >> I do agree that the current definition doesn't work well for the "urn" >> URI scheme, as, as you observed, semantics depend on the first >> component (the URN namespace). Do you have an example for an URN >> namespace you actually want a protocol handler for? >> > ISBNs. Oh, that's a good point. In particular, if the URN WG at some day makes progress with respect to retrieval. So, would it be possible to write a generic protocolHandler for URN which itself delegates to more specific ones? > ... BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 26 November 2010 07:59:38 UTC