Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> writes: > On 20 June 2012 21:04, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> . . . >> 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: I believe so. ht -- 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 20:07:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:45 UTC