- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:54:24 +0100
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, 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 2012-01-21 06:53, Larry Masinter wrote: >>> 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.) "process is irrelevant" made me smile; after all we need to follow the process to make a change like this. Also, the URI scheme registration spec is a work item of the IRI WG, so I don't quite see how to change it without the WG agreeing (and yes, "approval" was the wrong term here). > 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 Good point. > Remember: > > scheme = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." ) I do remember :-)
Received on Sunday, 22 January 2012 18:55:10 UTC