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

On 6/20/12 5:30 PM, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
>
>
> On 6/20/2012 1:42 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> 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 way this is phrased, you leave out a crucial subtlety. The 
> Architecure of the World Wide Web is quite clear on the fact that 
> definition of new schemes is allowed, but costly [1]:

True!

>
> ===========
> While Web architecture allows the definition of new schemes, 
> introducing a new scheme is costly. Many aspects of URI processing are 
> scheme-dependent, and a large amount of deployed software already 
> processes URIs of well-known schemes. Introducing a new URI scheme 
> requires the development and deployment not only of client software to 
> handle the scheme, but also of ancillary agents such as gateways, 
> proxies, and caches. See [RFC2718] for other considerations and costs 
> related to URI scheme design.
>
> Because of these costs, if a URI scheme exists that meets the needs of 
> an application, designers should use it rather than invent one.
>
> Good practice: Reuse URI schemes

Yes.

>
> A specification SHOULD reuse an existing URI scheme (rather than 
> create a new one) when it provides the desired properties of 
> identifiers and their relation to resources.
> ===========
>
> Many TAG members seem to be concerned that the advice above is too 
> often being ignored. In addition to the points made above, each token 
> in the scheme space is valuable, precisely because it is, by 
> tradition, one in which the names are short, central registration is 
> required, and no two facilities can use the same scheme name for 
> different purposes. Even if no acct URI's "leak" out from the intended 
> private use within Web finger, that relatively suggestive short name 
> is now not available for any other purpose as a scheme.
>
> For all these reasons, the bar should be set very high on the 
> registration of new schemes. That does not mean, as you suggest, that 
> there is a question of not "accommodating" new schemes. In the rare 
> cases where a new scheme is appropriate, the architecture can 
> accommodate it.

As you know, there's no bar higher that knocking HttpRange-14 
distractions at every turn. WebID solve a major problem. Its reliance of 
Linked Data ultimately brings the denotation (name) and web resource 
identification duality issues into scope. Thus, we have an example of a 
situation where a new URI scheme is warranted albeit solely as an 
additional option for entity (web or real-world) names that use 
indirection to resolve to web based descriptor documents/resources.

Kingsley
>
> Noah
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-scheme
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen