W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2011

Re: The state of 'afs' URi scheme

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 07:54:44 +0200
Message-ID: <4D464EA4.7090303@gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: URI <uri@w3.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>
30.01.2011 20:20, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2011, at 4:03 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I'd like to resume the discussion on 'afs' URI scheme by citing RFC 4395:
>>
>>> In some circumstances, it is appropriate to note a URI scheme that
>>>     was once in use or registered but for whatever reason is no longer in
>>>     common use or the use is not recommended.  In this case, it is
>>>     possible for an individual to request that the URI scheme be
>>>     registered (newly, or as an update to an existing registration) as
>>>     'historical'.  Any scheme that is no longer in common use MAY be
>>>     designated as historical; the registration should contain some
>>>     indication to where the scheme was previously defined or documented.
>> So there is a sense in moving this scheme to Historical category since it fully matches to these guidelines.  Therefore I do not consider such action as inappropriate for the 'afs' URI scheme.
> No, there is no reason to publish a new document about a
> scheme that was never used.  It is obsolete.
Roy,

I think that the document like that may be found here: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-melnikov-mailserver-uri-to-historic/ 
is suitable for 'afs' URI scheme.  This is the same situation as with 
the 'mailserver' URI scheme.

Mykyta
> ....Roy
>
>
Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 05:54:57 UTC

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