- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:24:57 -0800
- To: uri@w3.org
Mark Baker wrote: > The authors requested permanent registration which requires more > review than does provisional registration. Given the significant > issues that have been raised with the draft, I think it's fine that it > hasn't been registered yet. just as a clarification: this comment probably refers to the geo: scheme, which is something i had nothing to do with. it was proposed last year http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg00607.html and the "everything should be http" school of thought took notice very quickly http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg00608.html and as a fifth way of juggling prefixes (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2008Jan/0023.html already lists geoloc:, http:, urn:, and info:, which all were proposed as candidates for identifying geolocation resources), somebody suggested to use data: uris because coordinates are data, i guess... http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg00610.html cheers, dret.
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 01:25:37 UTC