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

Re: updating RFC 2718 (Guidelines for new URL schemes)

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:36:23 +0200
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, uri@w3.org
Cc: djz@corp.webtv.net, Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>, "'Paul Hoffman / IMC'" <phoffman@imc.org>
Message-ID: <7C979686F09E299DA8D58DD4@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>

Thanks for looking at this again, Larry!

Yes, chunks of it comes from my "things to think about" memo.... that was 
my only real claim to authorship on this one!

I feel that there is still value in keeping an Informational resource about 
URI registration - there is much that is common (or uncommon?) knowledge 
about URIs and registration, that shouldn't be part of the ruleset (because 
there are sometimes good reasons to override them), but should definitely 
be thought about before designing/registering an URI scheme.

It also allows keeping more of the dry humor that I sometimes appreciate in 
the RFC series, such as the "UR* = flamewar" comment... if you have 
compelling arguments for making it a BCP resource, I am listening....

Note - the original document was deliberately limited to URL schemes - this 
is not an accident; stuff like the HTTP proxy and "can all objects be 
referenced" mostly makes sense when it's an URL; the comment from 
draft-ietf-url-process-00 that got deleted from the "uninteresting 
questions" question:

>2.5.1 Is it an URL, an URN or something else?
>   This classification has proved interesting in theory, but not
>   terribly useful when evaluating schemes.

is a prime candidate for reinstatement if we change it to be a document 
about URI registration.....

(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/1997Jan/0000.html> is one URL for 
this I-D...)

Received on Monday, 30 August 2004 07:37:07 UTC

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