- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:21:32 +0200
- To: fielding@eBuilt.com, ejw@cse.ucsc.edu
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, uri@w3.org
> In other words, I think that "scheme:" is only a valid
> identifier for the
> namespace if the scheme defines it as such.
Fair enough. Though it seems that an RFC revision would
still be in order to permit schemes to define "scheme:"
as a valid absolute URI -- and also once some schemes
adopt such a practice, it will be pretty darn hard to
keep folks from presuming that "foo:" is the canonical,
official URI denoting the scheme.
It may be more practical to just state it once and
for all in a revision of the RFC. Otherwise, all
existing schemes that would like to use "scheme:" would
themselves have to be revised.
Clearly, though, namespace and other sub-scheme identifiers
(e.g. "urn:issn:" etc.) are the domain of each particular
scheme as to whether they are meaninful or allowed.
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2001 07:21:46 UTC