Re: Registration of acct: as a URI scheme has been requested

Kingsley Idehen <> writes:

> If the architecture of the world wide web can't accommodate new URI
> schemes then its broken. The great news is that it isn't broken.

The Web can indeed accommodate new URI schemes.  As I read it, this
isn't a proposal for a new URI scheme.  It's a proposal to add a
string of letters to a quasi-email-address so that the result _looks_
like a URI.  But as far as I can tell although it _looks_ like a URI,
it doesn't _walk_ like one (If I include it in my HTML nothing will
happen when a user clicks on it) or even _quack_ like one (No
general-purpose semantics is provided for it in the RFC draft that I
can see), so I'm inclined to conclude that it's _not_ a duckXXXXURI.

Seriously, my point is that not every identifier that's used in a
protocol that is used on the Web has to be a URI.  The ones that are
expected to be generic, to have a meaning and utility _outside_ the
protocol, sure.  But in that case I expect to see a
protocol-independent use for them spelled out.

On the other hand non-extensible enumerated types with
protocol-internal semantics are probably not anybody's idea of a good
basis for defining a new URI scheme.

Where does acct: fall on the implied continuum?  How generic/useful
does an identifier scheme have to be before it deserves a URI scheme?
Reasonable people may differ.  But, to quote RFC4395,

  "The use and deployment of new URI schemes in the Internet
   infrastructure is costly . . . For these reasons, the unbounded
   registration of new schemes is harmful.  New URI schemes SHOULD
   have clear utility to the broad Internet community." [1]

So I'm asking for some evidence of clear utility, beyond protocol
convenience, for going the URI scheme route.


       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:
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 19:05:30 UTC