RE: URIs for the standard output and input

Ted Hardie writes:

> The process by which IANA registers a new URI scheme is documented
> in RFC 4395 (aka BCP 115).  There was considerable discussion
> during the publication of the document about the right approach
> to registering new URI schemes. 

One of the motivations of that discussion was to eliminate the endless
wrangling about naming ideology from the registration of new schemes, so
that registration would in fact take place, thereby averting the problem
> many folks just created new schemes without registration.
> ...    Having non-interoperable definitions of these schemes 
> is a big problem; having a plethora of schemes has its own issues, 
> obviously, but using the registration process as a filter was not 
> apparently working to slow the creation of new schemes.

And the new procedure, which is starting to look a LOT like the old
procedure (wrangle until...), will fail to avoid the pitfalls if the
http://only police don't stop stonewalling.

> The current rules reflect a desire to have folks think carefully 
> about their need, and if they do find such a need to register 
> the scheme they create to fill it, at least provisionally, so 
> that the broader community is aware that they have done so.

It would appear that the some people (I'm not speaking about Ted in
particular) interpret "thinking carefully" to mean "think about it until
you agree with me".

There is, as Ted points out, modest danger in unregistered scheme
collisions.  There is almost NO danger from schemes that are registered
but which end up going nowhere because it turns out that none really
cares about them and they were a bad idea.  They will join the
tombstoned list of irrelevant schemes that someone once thought might be
important.  Get over it... move on.  Give Eric his scheme token for
heavens sake.

stu, who after 40 years STILL doesn't understand the lyric

Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 19:02:56 UTC