Re: info scheme has no authority component, why?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: info scheme has no authority component, why?

> > Indeed, the reg-name token in 2396bis seems to be targeting a
> > usage.  Whereas the RFC-2396 reg_name was a kind of non-host
> > that could not have a port number, the 2396bis reg-name is a kind
> > host and can have a port number.  Maybe the 2396bis vision is not
> > provide for abstract registered naming authorities as described in
> > RFC-2396 and info-uri-01, but merely to allow network entities
> > services, domains) to be named using more naming systems than just
> > RFC-1123 hostnames.  Is that the intention?
> No.  What the syntax allows and what a specific scheme uses are two
> different things.  There is nothing wrong with a scheme that only
> uses a subset of the available syntax, provided it avoids the
> reserved characters that would indicate otherwise.  Moving reg-name
> under host has the appropriate impact of reserving the ":" and "@"
> characters for a specific purpose, but no effect on any URI that
> might have been defined to use the old reg_name (which also reserved
> those characters).  The result is simply less ambiguous to parse.
> > On the other hand, if the intention of 2396bis is that reg-name
> > really be an abstract naming authority, shouldn't info: be using
> The "info" scheme proposal misuses almost every single aspect of URI
> syntax, philosophy, technology, and accepted best practice.  There
> no need for it to exist at all.  Yes, it would be better to use
> the generic authority syntax or the URN authority syntax for new URI
> schemes that make use of delegated naming authorities.
> ....Roy

Received on Friday, 12 March 2004 09:21:46 UTC