- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 14:07:00 -0800
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
From what I can tell, this is that draft with perhaps some small changes, and an added author. I'd like to see telephone-based URIs use the form proposed [1] by TBL; it's a much better integration with URIs. Unfortunately, because tel and fax are already out there, I doubt this will happen. Another issue that I've brought up with the author is their use of a parameter to communicate the body; it would be better to follow in mailto's footsteps here and use a query arg, IMHO. 1. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#relative On Thursday, April 4, 2002, at 08:57 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 14:39, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> My initial reaction to the draft [1] was 'use tel', but the arguments >> there [2] (Section 2.7.1) seem to support using different schemes for >> different types of endpoints (e.g., tel, fax, modem). > > Hmm... I already had an SMS URI scheme in my index... > > http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes#gsm-sms > > but I guess it was just an I-D: > > URLs for GSM Short Message Service . Vaha-Sipila, Internet Draft issued > 1998-12-09. > >> Besides that and the multiple resource issue, it looks in the ballpark; >> I plan to make some comments, and thought that people here might as >> well. >> >> >> 1. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wilde-sms-uri-02.txt >> 2. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2806.txt >> -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > >
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2002 17:07:03 UTC