- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:53:29 -0800
- To: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "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>
>> 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.
The process is mainly irrelevant (sure, you might have to update the RFC twice, but in the IETF, decisions are made by rough consensus of the internet community, the "working group" doesn't approve.)
The issue mainly is whether you follow the generic hierarchical syntax and can use all URI parsing libraries if there's an 'authority' that you want to process differently than the path.
for
web+blah://a/b/c
a is authority, path is /b/c
but for
web:blah://a/b/c
there is no authority, path is blah://a/b/c
Remember:
scheme = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." )
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2012 05:54:17 UTC