- From: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:25:12 -0700
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'Peter Saint-Andre'" <stpeter@jabber.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
Hi Larry, I think that it's going to be confusing saying that some URI schemes use IRI syntax. I think it needs to be a separate discussion and mechanism. Just my two cents, Ted At 1:14 PM -0700 8/22/05, Larry Masinter wrote: >Maybe we should address this in the URI scheme registration >document--that schemes could be defined in terms of "IRI" syntax, >using RFC 3987 rules to transform them to URI syntax. > >Right now, the guidelines don't really mention that as >a possibility. > >Even so, it should still be called a "URI scheme", even >if it is defined using "IRI syntax". > >Looking at RFC 3920, does the xmpp URI scheme assume >that you're using the TCP binding? Would there be a different >scheme for a binding that uses polling over HTTP? >Is the "xmpp" scheme only for XMPP version 1.0, or is >the version negotiated independently? > >Larry
Received on Monday, 22 August 2005 21:33:35 UTC