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

Re: scheme specific case normalization

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 13:21:01 +0000
Message-ID: <43D8CCBD.4010405@hpl.hp.com>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
CC: uri@w3.org

Larry Masinter wrote:
>>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.

OK - I have very limited understanding of IETF process, and agree that 
this document is a substantial improvement on the older docs, and that 
my comments don't merit disrupting the process.

> 
> 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.
> 

OK. I did try to find the earlier discussion; thanks for the explanation.

> "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.
> 

seems a shame ... but not worth holding things up for.

> 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.
> 
> 
Fixing the old specs would probably be a better approach to this problem.

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2006 13:21:49 UTC

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