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

Re: fb: URIs?

From: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:56:09 -0500
Message-ID: <e395be81002231656r8aa4575i343b21c372fd473a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Hi,

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, RFC 2717
alluded to use of SMI enterprise prefix names
(e.g., "pwg-ifx:" for IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Fax),
under the general topic of Alternate Trees (i.e., to
the IETF Tree).  RFC 4395 did away with this
standard prefix syntax for URI schemes.

Simply "x-foo:" is just as collision prone as "foo:",
when they are first minted (and of course they are
unregistered) in new applications and protocols
from non-IETF standards bodies and ISVs.

The long-standing stable approach in IETF SNMP
and other management protocols has been SMI
enterprise name or number as a prefix - it works.

Note that "facebook-fb:" would be harmless in
both prefix-aware and legacy URI parsers.

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 Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> hello.
>
>> The point is, even using schemes like this internally can, indirectly,
>> divide the Web.  There's the Web of software that believes fb is first
>> unregistered, and then for fruitbaskets, and there is the web of software
>> that directs fb references to Facebook applications.  I don't think you can
>> have it both ways.  If fb is to be deployed, it should be registered, I
>> think.  If very many systems like iPhone follow this model, we're going to
>> have a big mess with tens or hundreds of thousands of schemes registered for
>> very limited purposes.
>
> would it help at all to have X-... uri schemes that analogous to other named
> things on the internet by definition always would be local and
> context-specific? at least, somebody like facebook then could, if they
> wanted to, choose X-fb://... URIs and it would be clear that those were URIs
> which should be handled with care and in a certain context... it would be
> similar to tag:fb://... , which in an ideal world probably is what facebook
> should have done in the first place...
>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 00:56:42 UTC

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