W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2003

Re: new URI schemes, where to keep

From: <giovanni@wup.it>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:36:20 +0200
To: uri@w3c.org
Message-ID: <3F7C29D4.3264.13E836CD@localhost>
Hi there,

I was aware of these resources, but my point still holds if you look at them. The official 
registered list is tiny compared to the actual, meaningful and used uris, thing freenet, 
edonkey etc.. 
freenet is an established reality with a nontrivial uri space associated.. and yet, not 
mention of it in the uri schemas thing (of course) and even if the informal page lists it 
there is no actual information except 2 pedant remarks including "looks like a uri 

tag: is not listed reported either

Another  page is provided to see a list of unregistered uris but.. 


gives 404. Now i understand it will eventually come back to life but its the overall 
mechanism that i think should be more accessible and transparent but still official and 
rigorous at least in keeping tracks of the history of the proposals .. then it is up to the 
people to use them and up to the standardization body to santify them if that's the case.

brainstorming a little.. 

something like uripool.w3c.org or wannabeuris.w3c.. ? :-) 
I say w3c becouse i would say that most of the new, "quick" uris will be of interest in the 
domain of the semantic web anyway.. 

requirements for submission would be simple
a) a non colliding name
b) a legible and complete documentation 
c) a reachable contact for a certain point for comments for say 6 months

services offered could be "a light" validation process by a majority vote to get an 
informal "seal of approval" and a simple tracking of software using the prosed scheme 

or is it better to leave it to the defacto squatting ?


On 2 Oct 2003 at 10:21, Graham Klyne wrote:

> Start here:
>    http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes
> and then follow indirect references as necessary.
> Note that genuine URI schemes (as opposed to soi-disant wannabes) don't 
> reach the point of "has faded as draft", as they're required to be 
> published in RFCs.
> There is also an *informal* account of many proposed URI schemes accessible 
> via at:
>    http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSchemes
> #g
> --
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 07:36:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:44 UTC