W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2008

Re: URIs for the standard output and input streams

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:46:00 -0800
Message-Id: <9B40BF5C-FBD0-4C26-8FA2-812DE4CF1975@osafoundation.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
To: Noah Slater <nslater@bytesexual.org>


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
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 23:46:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:12 UTC