- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:55:35 -0600
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, David Recordon <davidrecordon@facebook.com>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 19:32 +0100, Julian Reschke 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). The bug is: going around the registry is easier than going thru it. i.e. the cost of registering a scheme outweighs the benefits in almost all cases. :-/ It's not like DNS where until you arrange for the powers that be to map your names to IP addresses, things don't work. Eran, you wrote "take a look at the list of unregistered schemes - it's LONG" Did you have a particular list in mind? If there _is_ such thing as _the_ list, that's a good thing; i.e. conflicts are being managed, to some extent. My sense is: there is no one good list. I hear there are hundreds of unregistered URI schemes in various operating systems and applications; I expect there is overlap. I used to maintain one. Then I delegated to a wiki http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSchemes Meanwhile, wikipedia has quite a good list too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_schemes#Unofficial_but_common_URI_schemes -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 22:55:38 UTC