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

Re: prs-/vnd- not broad enough; how about "ext-"

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:42:59 -0500
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org, draft-king-vnd-urlscheme-03.txt@roke.hawke.org
Message-Id: <1065105779.2698.906.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 14:02, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Re: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-king-vnd-urlscheme-03.txt
> The text clarifies that the term "vendor" isn't actually intended to
> mean "vendor".  
>      > The term "vendor" is used in this document for simplicity.
> It seems to me that this moves the complexity from the the RFC out
> into the world of everyone using the schemes.

And the whole notion of a non-IETF tree is predicated on
an assumption that it's good to let a thousand URI schemes

I'm not sure about that at all. I'm starting to think
that URI schemes are somewhat like currencies. A few
of them is good, but a zillion of them is counter-productive.

"Why shouldn't I create a new scheme for XYZ?

      * New URI schemes are the only thing you can't FollowYourNose to
        look them up."
  -- http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSchemes

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 10:43:00 UTC

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