- From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:31:41 -0500
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: uri@w3.org, uri-review@ietf.org
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > As I understand RFC 4395 the template does not have to be part of the > document; it would be rather silly to include one, so I've omitted it. While the template is not required to be included, it is certainly encouraged. > I considered also defining the 'ecmascript:' scheme as it is used in > ISO/IEC 19775, but I don't think this is quite a 'permanent' scheme > and provisional schemes cannot be registered from standards track > documents, as I read RFC 4395. I might ask the Web3D Consortium to > take care of that scheme in some other way. One suggestion: Appendices of standards track documents are not considered normative, and can be used to provide additional non-standards-track "stuff". I don't see anything in what we wrote in 4395 that would preclude ecmascript: from being defined in such an appendix and registered as a provisional scheme. Tony Hansen tony@att.com
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2006 20:58:40 UTC