- From: Tony Hammond <tonyhammond@mac.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:46:34 +0000
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
Well, gee Roy. You might like to help us out some by expanding on some of these claims.They are a little expansive. > The "info" scheme proposal misuses almost every single aspect of URI > syntax, philosophy, technology, and accepted best practice. We are very much trying to be consistent with URI syntax, philosophy and technology and are carefully tracking latest changes in -bis. (I won't claim 'accepted best practice' because this is a new URI scheme which does not have comparable antecedents.) We have received no feedback on the list since submitting the -01 revision last December, so it is difficult to know if we have introduced elements that are inconsistent with URI practice. It is certainly not our intention to 'misue'. > There is > no need for it to exist at all. But somehow there is felt to be a clear need which is what is driving this application. > Yes, it would be better to use either > the generic authority syntax or the URN authority syntax for new URI > schemes that make use of delegated naming authorities. There are problems with both of these approaches which have been carefully documented in the FAQ (available at <http://info-uri.info/> and presented earlier on this list when the -00 draft was posted. Tony Tony Hammond mail: tony@tonyhammond.net home: +44-(0)20-7704-1499 cell: +44-(0)7969-830-601
Received on Friday, 12 March 2004 05:13:02 UTC