Re: Registration timing of new URI schemes

* Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>I am asking this because I have no desire to spend time and energy
>discussing a new URI scheme (and provisional at that) when we clearly
>don't have all the answers. But at the same time, I don't want to cause
>problems by using a new scheme that is not at all registered.

When people come up with new schemes, the main problem I'd have is that
they are usually not properly documented with little evidence of intent
to do that and properly register them. Those concerns would be addressed
if you e.g. keep your thoughts on them in an Internet Draft and keeping
it from expiring, while you would not be dragged into arguments over it
prematurely. Picking a reasonably verbose and specific name for it would
also mitigate concerns over interference with other efforts.

As for timing, if you have multiple independent implementations that are
likely to be maintained for the next few years, that would be too late;
you would need to start discussion when there is still an opportunity to
make possibly substantive changes to those implementations in response
to feedback. In doubt name it "for-experimental-use-only-<schemename>:";
your desire to put it up for discussion should increase alongside your
desire to simply name it "schemename" instead.
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ·
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · 

Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 19:34:28 UTC