- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:44:01 +0100
- To: iesg@ietf.org
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, uri@w3.org, Tony Hansen <tony+urireg@maillennium.att.com>, Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG) would like to thank the authors of the draft RFC2717bis/RFC2718bis [1]. Your draft represents a significant contribution to the Web community. It is very well written, covers a broad range of important and sometimes subtle points, and in general we are very pleased to support its progress through the IETF process. We particularly appreciate the reference to our Architecture of the Worldwide Web (AWWW) document [2]. We do have one suggestion to which we hope you will give serious consideration. Section 2.1 states: "Because URI schemes constitute a single, global namespace, the unbounded registration of new schemes is harmful to the Internet community. For this reason, new URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad Internet community, beyond that available with already registered URI schemes." This is small step beyond what's already in RFC 2718, but we suggest that it would be useful to go further. Specifically, we believe that it would be valuable to more clearly emphasize that barriers to new scheme creation must be high. Stated positively, we suggest that there be clearer encouragement to use existing schemes, and especially to use schemes that are widely deployed. Our hope is that such guidance might in future prevent the registration of schemes such as dav: [3], an example of a scheme that we consider poorly motivated. We note too that various commercial organizations continue to deploy schemes that are at best marginally different in function from existing schemes such as http. Perhaps a clearer explanation of the issues would be useful guidance for those proposing similar schemes in the future. Note that the AWWW document does include some detailed discussion of the advantages of scheme reuse [4], and we invite you to reference that discussion normatively or otherwise should you find that helpful. Thank you again for your hard work on the draft, and for your consideration of these concerns. Henry S. Thompson for the W3C Technical Architecture Group [note -- followups to uri@w3.org, please] References: [1] http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-05.txt [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ [3] http://asg.web.cmu.edu/rfc/rfc2518.html#sec-8.1.1 [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-scheme - -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDFJrhkjnJixAXWBoRAmpNAJsFvDEAFj/MwbPNSvLoHddbCpvk7wCgg280 X9sIrOnjmlkSCVN4F2SGSaI= =54Fa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 17:44:45 UTC