[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
veillard@redhat.com (Daniel Veillard) writes:
> Also the existing RFCs describing URI say that the meaning of the
>fragment identifier is to be found in the description of the Mime-Type
>associated to the returned resource. The scheme you suggest invites to
>the proliferation of schemes without having a mechanism in place to
>insure that binding to the description of the Mime-Type. Mime-Type are
>limited, but at least their description is a place to make the
>association to the semantic of the associated scheme.
Precisely. There is already a mechanism in place for defining this
information, and it's far from clear that creating a wide-open URI-based
scheme inside of that mechanism actually produces an interoperability
benefit.
My suspicion is that there is a very limited number of "generic" XML
schemes that make sense - less than 20, even if I stretch my
imagination. Pretty much every scheme beyond that will be specific to a
particular vocabulary. Vocabularies which want to define their own
fragment identifier approaches should go to the trouble of registering a
MIME Media Type for their vocabulary. It's really not that difficult.
> Schemes are my baby in a way, I do think they are a very important
>feature, but I can't see how suggesting to open up their usage without
>a way to also bind the definition can be useful and not actually
>prevent them from being deployed. If they don't work in practice,
>people won't use them, and support is not gonna grow. Be realistic,
>there is no way people providing browsing support are gonna start
>chasing schemes defined randomly, you will need a registry, if you
>don't bind to the existing IETF suggested practice to define them I'm
>afraid it will at best turn in a big mess, and at worse never
>deploy...
I agree completely. I like schemes, and think they're an important
innovation. We need to make sure that innovation fits cleanly with the
existing context, however.
-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
