- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:07:25 +0100
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, www-tag@w3.org
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