Lists Home |
Date Index |
firstname.lastname@example.org (Henry S. Thompson) writes:
>Sorry to be dense, but I just don't see how having a scheme name
>registry will solve, or even ameliorate, the interoperable
>implementation of scheme semantics.
I don't see XPointer QNames improving on that situation at all either,
while imposing rather astonishing verbosity costs.
>At the end of the day, all we
>have is natural language documentation to define scheme semantics, and
>the obvious place to put such documentation is at the scheme namespace
Given the amount of argument that has already taken place about what
namespace URIs mean or don't mean, I have to find that statement
completely astounding if not simply maddening, especially given the
"Core Principle 2" Tim Bray posted to www-tag about how we shouldn't
constrain URI schemes for any given usage of URIs.
Do URIs contribute anything in this case? I don't believe they do. It
seems to me that identifying the syntax and usage of fragment
identifiers is a task for application and vocabulary developers, not
something that should be imposed on every single fragment identifier
ever used that doesn't happen to be blessed by the W3C.
>Are you saying that scheme registration should _require_ scheme
As I expect nearly all new scheme-registration to take place in the
context of MIME Media Type registrations, yes, I do.
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:188.8.131.52.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether