- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:20:38 +0900
- To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, uri@w3.org
- Cc: djz@corp.webtv.net, Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>, "'Paul Hoffman / IMC'" <phoffman@imc.org>
Hello Harald, At 08:36 04/08/30 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: >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. I think the direction at the BOF in San Diego was to have only one document, basically a combination of the current two documents, because this makes it much easier for scheme designers (one-stop shopping). Also, if we make the registration easier, as also discussed at the BOF, this may mean that there is more material that is only advisory/informational, as opposed to fixed rules. But I think it should be possible to put this all in one document, there are things such as 'MUST' and 'SHOULD', as well as the possibility to label sections as informative,... >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.... 'One stop shopping' is a very strong argument. >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...) I think we need some considerations both for schemes that for similar to http:/file:/..., for schemes that work similar to things like telnet:, and for schemes that do things similar to tag:,..., as well as probably others. Some rules and advice will be common, but in other cases, we will have to just say: make clear which kind of use this is for. Regards, Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2004 11:53:38 UTC