- From: Tom Sears <TSEARS@csi.compuserve.com>
- Date: 03 Jan 95 15:38:54 EST
- To: uri working group <uri@bunyip.com>
Happy New Year All, Section 4 of RFC 1738 lists several new schemes that are under consideration for the standard URL syntax. Would there also be a benefit from adding a "private" scheme? This private scheme would reserve the namespace for general use with very few semantic restrictions other than a scope within which the URL is valid. Different organizations could use this "private" namespace internally without worrying about name conflicts with others. CompuServe is currently investigating using the URI architecture and this scheme would definitely be a very convenient addition for accessing and managing internal resources. This would allow us (or whoever) to use one system to handle the naming of both internal and external resources. The "private" scheme could have completely different semantics to another organization for example. Although the "private" scheme namespace would be reservered globally, it would only be valid within the domain (I am assuming use of DNS) of the resource provider. An example might be... <URL:private:compuserve.com/some_opaque_string_only_meaningful_to_CS> whereas another one might be... <URL:private:att.com/some_opaque_string_only_meaningful_to_ATT> and so on.... so with that said...Is this a reasonable request? Are there alternative suggestions? Would such an addition be valuable to others? Thanks Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom Sears tsears@csi.compuserve.com Compuserve, Inc. Compuserve Mail: 70004,1755 5000, Arlington Center Blvd., Columbus, OH 43220 PH: (614)538-3248 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 1995 17:25:42 UTC