- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:12:07 +0200
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, www-tag@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhLW3oGXxD356DD1R3hCOv+wK1bDTFrWWHDR1YgX2ydJZw@mail.gmail.com>
On 20 June 2012 21:04, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> 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] > Just out of curiosity, do less stringent arguments hold or URN's. For example: urn:acct: > > So I'm asking for some evidence of clear utility, beyond protocol > convenience, for going the URI scheme route. > > ht > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-2.1 > -- > 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] > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 19:12:37 UTC