Re: Excess URI schemes considered harmful

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 01:57:32PM -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
> > 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.
> Wouldn't that depend on the type of redirect?
> A 301 means a firm "The requested resource has been assigned a new
> permanent URI [...]", whereas a 302 means a softer "The requested
> resource resides temporarily under a different URI."
> I suggest that a 301 redirect should mean exactly what you suggest
> redirects should not mean.
> Anyhow, I'm all for moving media type URLs under  If this is
> done soon, I think we can forgo needing redirects to be set up, as I'm
> not aware of any deployed software that uses the ISI URLs.

Again, are you sure? The IANA may not be the registry for these items
in the future. The IANA is simply the organization that the IETF/ISOC
has contracted with to provide that service now. Depending on the state
of politics it may not be so in the future.

IMHO, urn:ietf:params:media-type:text-plain

is much better....


Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | urn:pin:1      |                              |

Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 14:07:31 UTC