RE: Proposed Status Categories for URI Scheme registry

> ...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.

I'm not sure what kind of reference to give. (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.


Received on Monday, 24 January 2005 22:11:57 UTC