W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2006

RE: scheme specific case normalization

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:48:35 -0800
To: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301c621df$f2e511c0$1d1796c0@corp.adobe.com>

>From a process point of view: The RFC is about to be issued,
and there won't be substantive changes without a very
strong case that the text that's there is really wrong
or lacking.

This document's purpose is to establish a baseline
of guidelines for what new scheme definitions should
or shouldn't contain, but the actual process is "expert
review" with a period of mailing list discussion. So it's
always possible for a proposed scheme definition to have
additional considerations -- not in the document -- to be
raised. There's judgment involved.

Specifically:

"x-" private use: we decided against recommending this
long ago, for the same reasons why "x-" tokens have turned
out to be a bad idea in MIME types: the experiments are
successful gradually, and there's never an opportunity to
change the name from "x-blah" to "blah". So register the
name you want in the first place, albeit provisionally.

"scheme specific case normalization": the document's purpose
is to give guidelines for registration, not to make normative
assertions about what implementations should or shouldn't do.

consistent use of components: I think this is also a
matter of judgment. I regret that "file:" and "ftp:"
are inconsistent, but I think the first thing to do
is to update those specs. I've dropped the ball on updating
the "file:" specification (It's the oldest item on
my 'todo' list), but I'm still hopeful.
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:48:56 UTC

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