W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2001

Re: Excess URI schemes considered harmful

From: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:30:12 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010925102514.01db96e0@goobox.prognet.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
At 01:20 PM 9/25/01 -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Mark Baker wrote:
> > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-cturi-02.txt
> > >
> > > Registered media types already have URIs.  For example, 
> "application/xml" has;
> > >
> > > http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/application/xml
> > >
> > > Granted, types that aren't guaranteed to be registered (such as
> > > experimental, vendor, or personal tree) don't get URIs of that form.
> > > But I don't believe creating new URI schemes is necessary or
> > > desirable, when an existing scheme such as "http" would suffice.
> >
> > Note that IANA makes no guarantees that these URIs are permanent.
> > "isi.edu"?  Please.
>
>I'm not familiar with the details of the relationship between IANA and
>ISI, but I wouldn't expect it would be difficult to organize configuring
>some HTTP redirects, if and when it's no longer appropriate for ISI to
>be controlling those URLs.

There's nothing wrong with there being a well-known location for IANA 
URLs.  However, many mechanisms defined by the W3C rely on URIs as a means 
of expressing registry information (SMIL systemComponent is the one I'm 
primarily interested in, but I understand CC/PP has a similar concern).  In 
order to have interoperability between implementations, both 
implementations need to implement the *same* scheme.  Redirects are *not* 
acceptable.

Rob
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 13:35:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:03 UTC