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

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]