W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2005

RE: New URI registration draft; significant changed

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
Message-id: <0ICC00KRNC7E8K@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC