- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:44:04 +0200
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>, Steve Suehring <suehring@braingia.org>, uri-review@ietf.org, uri@w3.org
[snip] David, Can I suggest a new workflow for these ideas? Instead of intervening when every new URI scheme proposal comes through these lists, perhaps you could work to persuade the W3C TAG of them instead? I think I understand where you're coming from, but the approach is pretty alien to URIs as currently deployed, particularly with regard to browser infrastructure, which at the moment is universally keyed off of the scheme prefix and unlikely to change rapidly due to the huge security implications. There might be something in these ideas (though I remain generally skeptical when it comes to protocols - such as ssh - rather than content/object identifiers eg. doi, xri, ...). At the moment they're being discussed in an ad hoc way whenever someone proposes a new scheme. Could it be more efficient to propose and refine them through the TAG, perhaps? cheers, Dan
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 07:44:38 UTC