W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2002

RE: unregistered mbox: , rgb: URI schemes?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 12:26:26 +0200
To: <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCIEMKEPAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>

> From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dan
> Connolly
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 10:09 PM
> To: evolution-hackers@ximian.com
> Cc: uri@w3.org
> Subject: unregistered mbox: , rgb: URI schemes?
> I see mbox: and rgb: in
>   http://www.ximian.com/devzone/tech/evolution.html
> Are those new URI schemes? If so, please
> register them.
> For details, see the registry...
>   http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes
> and guidelines...
>   http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2717.txt
> and some notes I keep...
> http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes.html#Registration

Sadly, many projects are following WebDAV's example of defining a special
URI scheme just for the purpose of identiying their namespaces. In the case
of WebDAV (RFC2518), the scheme was at least registered, and the official
errata document recognizes this as a valid issue with the protocol.

Subversion (http://subversion.tigris.org) sadly is doing the same thing --
it defines a new URI scheme ("svn:") for internal identifiers which now
shows up as XML namespace both in internal files (entries files for
instance) and in external marshalling (WebDAV request/response bodies). It
would be nice if this would be fixed before they reach 1.0. The issue has
certainly been raised but was rejected by their respective developers.

Received on Sunday, 21 July 2002 06:27:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:04 UTC