> 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.netReceived on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 01:30:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:47 UTC