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

Re: The 'javascript' scheme

From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:31:41 -0500
Message-ID: <455CCAAD.2040407@att.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:10 UTC