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

Re: fb: URIs?

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>
Message-ID: <1266447335.7402.107.camel@pav.lan>
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

Meanwhile, wikipedia has quite a good list too:

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:53 UTC