[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion writes:
> This discussion makes it sound like this was all for nothing -- there
> seems to be a deep presumption that there should be a canonical
> prefix/suffix/acronym for every semantically distinct format.
> I don't have strong feelings, myself, but if the W3C orthodoxy
> is simply rolling a rock uphill that rolls back down everytime
> someone sits down to rest, why are we bothering with all this
> namespace URI voodo, controversy, and permanent education campaign?
> At what point would we conclude that it was all a good but
> unworkable idea, and just use IANA or whatever to globally
> map short acronyms onto namespace prefixes and file suffixes?
>
> Before you flame me to a crisp, I'm talking about the world as it
> exists, contaminated by nearly 20 years of having to deal with
> DOS/Windows file extensions, not the world as it could or even
> should be.
URI schemes also appear to work that way. Section 3.1 of RFC 2396
notes:
> Scheme names consist of a sequence of characters beginning with a
> lower case letter and followed by any combination of lower case
> letters, digits, plus ("+"), period ("."), or hyphen ("-"). For
> resiliency, programs interpreting URI should treat upper case letters
> as equivalent to lower case in scheme names (e.g., allow "HTTP" as
> well as "http").
RFC 2717 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2717.txt) provides a registration
mechanism for such schemes.
-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.com may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
