Re: Proposed Status Categories for URI Scheme registry

Stu Weibel (as "Weibel,Stu") wrote to <> circa 21 
January 2005 in "Proposed Status Categories for URI Scheme" 

> I am convinced by the argument of Larry and others that it is important
> that a URI registry reflect the real & messy world as far as possible.

A convert! Admit it, Stu, it was my integer-as-argument that got you.

> I remain convinced as well that there must be provisions for orderly
> promotion of demonstrably-useful schemes, and that the business cases
> for such schemes, as well as good network practices, require assured
> unique tokens.

Yes, that all sounds solid and good.

> Proposed status categories for a URI Scheme registry
> Permanent [...]
> Provisional [...]
> Vernacular (wild-type) [...]
> Historic [...]

I support the proposal almost completely. My lone objection is to the 
miscategorization of the documentation of "vernacular" schemes:

>   Documentation unspecified (none | author-managed |
> community-managed...)

The word "unspecified" does not fit (or is confusing; does it describe 
the location of the documentation or the formality of the 
documentation?). In the case of no documentation, it is not that the 
documentation is "unspecified", which implies that documentation exists. 
Rather, the scheme would be unspecified. And what of a rigorous scheme 
specification, perhaps an Internet-Draft, managed by an individual, a 
community of interest, or a business? That is hardly unspecified. Dare 
Obasanjo's "feed"-scheme proposal 
comes to mind.

Etan Wexler.
“(A short pause while I contemplate some choice words.)”
  —Eric Meyer, “Hypertext 2004” 

Received on Sunday, 23 January 2005 08:14:06 UTC