W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2010

Re: fb: URIs?

From: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:59:25 -0500
Message-ID: <e395be81002171059o3e412370ned70dcb1b95ee9eb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, David Recordon <davidrecordon@facebook.com>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
Hi Julian et al,

The process of registering new URI schemes has been
gruesomely long-winded and difficult for some years.

The process is also badly obscured by the constant
long threads of "just use http: URIs" from zealots.

Speaking from the perspective of the printing industry,
the current process (RFC 4395) is badly flawed by
disallowing the former use of SMI enterprise names as
URI prefixes (e.g., pwg-ifx: for PWG Internet Fax) that
was previously recommended in RFC 2717.

This change discourages provisional registrations and
muddies the URI scheme namespace badly.  Use of
unregistered URI  schemes with SMI enterprise prefixes
was inherently safer.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic@gmail.com
winter:
  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176
  734-944-0094
summer:
  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
  906-494-2434



On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 17.02.2010 19:21, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 9:13 AM
>>
>>> What exactly is broken with the system?
>>
>> Getting consensus on a new URI scheme is hard. The registry also doesn't
>> reflect reality (more unregistered schemes than registered). For example, I
>> don't know what is going on with the about: scheme but it seems to take a
>> long time for something that seems simple.
>
> 1) Yes it is. (I consider that a feature).
>
> 2) That's a problem it shares with all registries I'm aware of.
>
> 3) I'm following that ID; believe me, that was entirely caused by lack of
> bandwidth by the authors - maybe that is fixed now.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 18:59:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:14 UTC