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

RE: Proposed Status Categories for URI Scheme registry

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:11:55 -0800
To: uri@w3.org
Message-id: <0IAU00AQNDNVL1@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

> ...I'd also like to see a stick such as "all
> URI schemes referenced by standards track documents must be fully
> registered and documented." And then that is at a minimum. I would
> personally prefer that be extended to all RFCs (experimental,
> information, etc) and W3C standards.

Well, draft-hansen-etc is targeted as an IETF BCP; I think it
could be "best current practice" that URI schemes in RFCs be
registered appropriately for the status of the document (e.g.,
h-permanent for standards track, at least h-provisional for others).
The mapping to w- levels is harder; it might be w-permanent for
"full standard" but w-provisional for "standards track" and
w-vernacular for all other documents.

> An informative reference to the Architecure of the WWW would be nice  
> addition.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/

I'm not sure what kind of reference to give. 
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-registration (section 2.4.1)
references RFC2716 and 2717, which this document intends to update.

I like the reasons for not using unregistered schemes; I also like the
advice against using new URI schemes when a new content-type
would do.

I think, though, it would be good to include these in draft-hansen-etc
directly, and acknowledge webarch in the acknowledgements.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Monday, 24 January 2005 22:11:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:08 UTC