- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:30:49 -0800
- To: "'Dave McAlpin'" <Dave.McAlpin@epok.net>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
> I think I expected something stronger, like advice that the scheme's > syntax should be defined in terms of both 3986 and 3987. I imagine > future schemes including an appendix, possibly non-normative, with ABNF > based on 3987 for applications that natively support IRIs. I just > wondered if it was too early to offer that as a best practice. Well, let's take a current example: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-mailto-bis-00.txt is an example of a (revision of a) URI scheme definition that is defined in terms of RFC 3986/STD 66, but consistent with the advice in RFC 3987 (as recommended by draft-hansen-...). Would you really want to see the BNF duplicated, once for URI and IRI? I don't think it would be useful, and I think that it would introduce opportunities for confusion or even conflicting definitions. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 01:30:53 UTC