- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:09:11 -0700
- To: "'Peter Saint-Andre'" <stpeter@jabber.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
Peter, there aren't "IRI schemes", there are only "URI schemes"
even though URIs may appear in IRI form. You must provide URI
syntax for systems that accept URIs and don't accept IRIs.
Your use of examples with "#xNNN;" format just confuses the issue.
I'm uncomfortable with the use of "//" "/" to delimit
'auth-xmpp' authority. I don't understand how you map
a URI with this scheme into a set of operations using the
XMPP protocol, and I’m not sure where you explain that.
2. optionally (if an authority component is to be included), the
characters "//", an authority component of the form node@domain,
and the character "/"
indicating a trailing "/" is required, but it doesn't seem to be.
If you could kindly review the proposed new URI registration
rules (now in 'last call'), that would be useful:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guideli
nes-04.txt
Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Friday, 19 August 2005 20:09:26 UTC