Re: [dix] on the dix: URI scheme for DIX/SXIP

McDonald, Ira wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> With respect to "scarce":
> 
> Although I have mixed feelings about the logic, the brand
> new RFC 4395 "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for 
> New URI Schemes" argues that the bar should be very high
> for a new 'Permanent' URI scheme, because so many browsers
> and other bits of client software will have to updated for
> the URI scheme to become widely deployed and used.

I guess that DIX is an example of a proposal that drives a truck through
that argument. Clearly all that s/w has to be changed _no matter how_
you represent DIX. It seems likely to me that this is generally true,
too, but I'm not planning to make a stand against 4395 on that basis :-)

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html           http://www.links.org/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

Received on Saturday, 18 March 2006 18:13:34 UTC