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

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Melvin Carvalho

> On 20 June 2012 21:04, Henry S. Thompson <> wrote:
>> Kingsley Idehen <> 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:

And do note that due to failing Henry's parameters, URNs are also pretty
useless in practice, thus the use of http URIs in linked data etc. for the
most part.

>> So I'm asking for some evidence of clear utility, beyond protocol
>> convenience, for going the URI scheme route.
>> ht
>> [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:
>>                       URL:
>>  [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged
>> spam]

Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 17:19:02 UTC