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

RE: sms uri scheme

From: McDonald, Ira <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 10:28:42 -0800
Message-ID: <116DB56CD7DED511BC7800508B2CA537B0031E@mailsrvnt02.enet.sharplabs.com>
To: "'Erik Wilde'" <net.dret@dret.net>, uri@w3.org

Hi Erik,

Personally, I agree that 'sms' should be a simple scheme name,
because it represents a service as common as 'fax' (outside 
the US).

I also agree that 'itu-sms' adds no value.  Prefixed scheme
names have merits.  Just not this one.

Note - the latest two SMS internet-drafts (15 May 2003) were:
draft-wilde-sms-service-04.txt, draft-wilde-sms-uri-04.txt.
They are expired and no longer archived at the IETF FTP site.
[Erik, you might want to issue new drafts??]

- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Wilde [mailto:net.dret@dret.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 12:03 PM
To: uri@w3.org
Subject: sms uri scheme


since i have received so little feedback about the two drafts regarding an 
sms uri scheme (http://dret.net/netdret/publications#wil01g and 
http://dret.net/netdret/publications#wil02a) i am trying again to get some 
feedback. feedback would be welcome about two issues:

- is the uri scheme ok as it is proposed in the drafts. since i haven't 
heard any criticism in a while, i would assume that either the people who 
should criticize the scheme are not reading these lists, or the scheme as 
proposed is technically acceptable.

- the major problem obviously is the question of how to call the scheme. 
the scheme naming issue seems to be a slowly moving activity. in my humble 
opinion, the reason why this even affects the "sms" drafts is that in the 
u.s. the popularity of sms messages is not nearly as high as it is in the 
rest of the world. i would be interested to find out who really thinks that 
"oma-sms" or "itu-sms" would be reasonable ways to name the scheme. btw, is 
there talk about renaming the tel and fax schemes to "itu-tel" and 
"itu-fax" ... ? i think that it is not appropriate to apply all the 
objections against scheme name misuse to the proposed sms scheme, since sms 
(in the non-u.s. parts of the world) messaging is as ubiquitous as phone 
and fax usage.

please let me know if you have any opinion about these issues. and if 
anybody had any suggestions how i could restart the ietf machinery to 
actually process the drafts, i would be most grateful.

thanks and cheers,

erik wilde  -  tel:+41-1-6325132  -  fax:+41-1-6321035
   mailto:net.dret@dret.net  -  http://dret.net/netdret
   computer engineering and networks laboratory   (tik)
   swiss federal institute of technology, zurich (ethz)
Received on Sunday, 25 January 2004 13:29:12 UTC

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