Registration of acct: as a URI scheme has been requested

I think the TAG should look at this.  It raises the general question
of the architectural appropriateness of URI schemes intended only for
use internally within a particular protocol.  As I understand it acct:
URIs have no meaning outside messages in the proposed webfinger
protocol.

ht

attached mail follows:

* Paul E. Jones wrote:
>I have also sent a request to the email address specified for URI scheme
>review to try to move registration of "acct" along.  I hope that will not
>take long, and I would hope it would not considering the specific and narrow
>scope of "acct".

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg01605.html if
anyone wants to follow along.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss





-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]