- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:27:24 +0100
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On 2012-01-20 11:23, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > On 2012/01/20 3:13, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2012-01-19 19:00, David Booth wrote: > >>> What other options are being considered? > >> Instead (stealing an idea mentioned earlier), it could simply define a >> new URI scheme "web", and manage that namespace itself. At least that >> would contain the effects of this experiment. > > I'm not sure what the difference would be between having e.g., > "web+acme:hello" and "web:acme:hello", except for a multi-level > structure where potential inventors of a new protocol/scheme get more > confused than necessary. > ... The difference is mainly process: "web+" needs coordination with and approval by the IETF IRI WG, while "web:" is simply one additional new URI scheme. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 10:34:52 UTC