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

I  observe that there is an "school of thought" which posits that any 
resource can and should be identified with an http URI. Without 
addressing the merits of that argument, I would say the existence of 
that argument, and the significant ignorance of that argument among 
many important groups of implementers makes the 
criterion automatically controversial.

Perhaps this is obvious.

At 16:48 29/08/04 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
>2.3 Demonstrated utility
>I'd like to suggest that we require something stronger: that new
>URI schemes have demonstratable, new, long-lived
>   Because URI schemes are a single, global namespace, the
>   unrestricted registration of many new URI schemes can
>   clutter implementation space, and possibly lead to
>   contention for "short names". For this reason, new
>   URI schemes should have a clear utility to the broad
>   Internet community, and provide some means of identifying
>   resources that is not already available with previously
>   registered URI schemes.
>Perhaps this is controversial :)


Eric Hellman, President                            Openly Informatics, Inc.                                    2 Broad St., 2nd Floor
tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216              Bloomfield, NJ 07003      1 Click Access To Everything

Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2004 04:51:45 UTC