Re: URIs for the standard output and input streams

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.

Lisa