W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2004

RE: Documenting URI schemes

From: Hammond, Tony <T.Hammond@nature.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:34:30 +0100
Message-ID: <125F7834E11A5741A7D79412EE3504F90CE55786@UK1APPS2.nature.com>
To: "'Etan Wexler'" <ewexler@stickdog.com>, uri@w3.org

> (a title like "The 'irc' URI scheme" is quite clear)

This example has always fascinated me. Since RFC 1459 for the IRC protocol
was issued back in May 1993 (over 10 years ago,  if my counting is right),
and no URI scheme has yet been registered with the IANA AFAIK, while clearly
the protocol is of a certain utility on the Internet, and URIs are also
routinely divvied up e.g. on #rdfig (as <irc://irc.freenode.net/rdfig>) -
and we are always being chided to name Webby types of things (er,
'resources') vis URIs - what does this say to a layman about the importance
of URI? (Maybe, it's just not important.)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of Etan Wexler
> Sent: 10 August 2004 11:14
> To: uri@w3.org
> Subject: Documenting URI schemes
> Consider the following as guidelines for dealing with the many 
> undocumented or poorly documented URI schemes.
> * For documentation of unregistered or ill-defined schemes, use 
> Informational-series ("FYI") Requests for Comments (RFC). Or use W3C 
> group Notes.
> * Maintain a one-to-one correspondence between current documents and 
> URI schemes. (The planned splitting of the scheme documentation in 
> rfc1738bis is a Good Thing.) Resist the temptation to combine scheme 
> documentation. Separate documents allow for better searching (a title 
> like "The 'irc' URI scheme" is quite clear) and for stronger metadata 
> (obsoleting rather than updating).
> * Maintain a usage document separate from all particular scheme 
> documents. The usage document (again, an FYI or Note) would list the 
> following data for each scheme, whether registered, unregistered, 
> IETF-blessed, poorly documented, or whatever.
>      * Name.
>      * Level of use (say, "pervasive", "common", "rare").
>      * Expected change in level of use.
>      * Reference to scheme-specific documentation.
> * Update the usage document regularly. What would be an appropriate 
> interval? A year? Two years?
> -- 
> Etan Wexler.

DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents. Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998 Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2004 10:35:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:08 UTC