- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:49:20 -0800
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, "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>, Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>, "Tony Hansen (tony@att.com)" <tony@att.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Martin (I believe) wrote: > I agree that a weakness of the current spec (both for the whitelist and the web+ prefix) > is that schemes can't move from one category to the other easily. Alternatives such as > a flag in the scheme registry would be different in this respect. FYI, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg is an update to the URI scheme registry and registration process, and adding a column in the scheme registry or a field in the registration template is possible and timely. (cc Chris Weber , WG chair, and Tony & Ted, co-editors of registration document.) I think there's some hope of converging on completing this document soon, though, so if changes to the scheme registry are needed, doing so sooner (oh, by March?) rather than later would be helpful. Larry
Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 17:50:05 UTC