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

Re: new URI schemes, where to keep

From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni@wup.it>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:55:52 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <3692.>
To: uri@w3.org

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

> Start here:

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 like 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 squatting"

and of course tag: is not listed in the page at all

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 (ID format if you want)
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

Not perfect but better than leaving to the defacto squatting practice?


>    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 10:56:23 UTC

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