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

Re: URIs for the standard output and input streams

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:40:01 -0500
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Noah Slater <nslater@bytesexual.org>, uri@w3.org, Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Message-ID: <OF1BF84715.99D79506-ON852573EF.007120B8-852573EF.00717222@lotus.com>

Speaking for myself and not officially for the W3C TAG, it's quite 
possible that the TAG would have an opinion on this.  The TAG has an 
ongoing interest in helping the community to decide where new URI schemes 
such as std: (for standard input, output, etc.) are needed and where they 
are best avoided.   If you're interested in following up, please send a 
note to www-tag@w3.org.  That's a public list.  You can also contact our 
chair, Stuart Williams (copied on this reply).  Thank you.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Sent by: uri-request@w3.org
02/05/2008 08:36 PM
 
        To:     Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
        cc:     Noah Slater <nslater@bytesexual.org>, uri@w3.org, (bcc: 
Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Re: URIs for the standard output and input streams



Ted reminded me that IETF-wide review and IESG evaluation aren't 
required for all URI registrations, even those for permanent status. 
IETF review and IESG evaluation may be required at the discretion of 
the expert reviewer, assuming that the author of the registration has 
not already chosen to put a document containing the registration 
through IETF review and IESG evaluation.

Lisa

On Feb 5, 2008, at 3:46 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>
>
> 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 Thursday, 14 February 2008 20:39:35 UTC

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