W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2008

[XRI] The scheme

From: John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 10:30:36 -0700
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0BFD606D-8837-4C88-8FC7-ECFD51A1B7AB@wingaa.com>
To: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Hi Stuart,

The issue of a registered scheme for XRI is probably the most  
political if the three issues.

RFC 4395 details the registration process with the ITEF.

However we have new facts on the ground, that are slightly more  
complicated.

The W3C in its draft URNs and Registries document (2006) and its  
recommendation specifically against XRI 2.0 standard of May 2006,  has  
de-facto set itself up as a gating process for new URI schemes.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0078
It is unlikely that in the light of such TAG opposition that the XRI- 
TC would be successful with the registration process at the IETF.

My question is if the XRI-TC feels justified in its need for a scheme  
should it take its case directly to the IETF process?
Conversely should there be some process at the W3C to formalize the  
process around the production of findings against proposed URI schemes  
and some process for the scheme authors to have those findings  
rescinded upon further discussion and negotiation with the W3C.

I am in no way saying that the W3C and the TAG don't have a role and  
legitimate concerns.   I share some of the concerns.
However the process producing and dealing with these URI scheme  
findings by the TAG seems a touch arbitrary to outsiders.

If the XRI-TC and potentially others must now engage with a W3C gating  
process for URI registrations,  we would like a clarification of the  
process.

The results of that process may well be the spec authors agreeing that  
there is some other way to meet there requirements other than by  
registering a URI scheme.

My characterization of the TAGs position is that no new schemes should  
be registered,  and existing schemes other than http(s) probably  
shouldn't have.
You characterize the TAGs position as less extreme.

Some documented process will show the community who's characterization  
is closer to the facts on the ground.

I think this is a useful conversation,  however we will continue to  
explore other alternatives to registering a scheme as that is probably  
the path of least resistance.

Regards
John Bradley
OASIS IDTRUST-SC
http://xri.net/=jbradley
五里霧中


On 19-Jul-08, at 3:54 AM, Stuart Williams wrote:

> Hello John,
>
> John Bradley wrote:
>> Thanks Stuart,
>>
>> The TAGs position seems clear and categorical from my position on  
>> the outside.
>> Without clear guidelines on how to reach the bar that the W3C has  
>> set,  it would seem unlikely the XRI or anyone else will reach it.
>> It has been stated that existing schemes don't meet the new  
>> standards.
> Guidelines for new URI scheme registrations can be found in RFC 4395  
> - section 5 details the registration process. Governance is via the  
> IETF and at best the TAG and more generally  W3C have influence but  
> no control.
>
> [1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4395.txt
>> I don't know that it is productive for us to start digging into  
>> where that bar is if we can find a way of implementing XRI without  
>> a new scheme.
>>
>> If people want to start a tread on what standard must be met to  
>> justify an new scheme,  you know where to find me:)
>>
>> Setting the scheme issue aside for the moment.
> ok.
>
>>

Received on Saturday, 19 July 2008 17:31:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:23 UTC