On Jan 15, 2008, at 7:33 AM, Noah Slater wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 07:26:06AM -0800, James M Snell wrote: >> Well stated. std:in, std:out and std:err are perfect; using >> http://whatever is ugly and buys us little > > Well, URI schemes must be registered with IANA. You should contact > them to see what they have to say. I would be surprised if they didn't > suggest that you use HTTP instead. I'm late to this thread, but wanted to be a little more clear about IANA's role in this. IANA reviews URI registrations to see if they're complete and unique etc, but not to see if they're a good idea or to enforce or encourage any architectural policy. High-level review about what to do comes from - the URI@w3.org mailing list, this list - IANA's expert reviewer, Graham Klyne, who generally does not push HTTP for all purposes - the IETF-wide review done in IETF last call (often silence ensues at this phase) - the IESG during IESG evaluation, lately the most difficult party to satisfy Hope this helps explain who might have taste or policy issues with new URI schemes. LisaReceived on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 23:46:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:50 UTC