[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Uri-review] ACTION-103 Follow up on the about: scheme Registration

To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] ACTION-103 Follow up on the about: scheme Registration
From: Joseph A Holsten <joseph at josephholsten.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 10:27:45 -0500
Cc: URI <uri at w3.org>, uri-review at ietf.org, public-html <public-html at w3.org>
Delivered-to: uri-review at core3.amsl.com
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:cc:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:x-mailer; bh=J1Wrqttpe5vN3a9Dkov8kpkGR0eV3tBNelEpYKsdZpg=; b=TIk98unyzfqbP0jy6lTnZCH4EDvvU0vhR+Tne7nMfxQCzGIJWpOudG0sKHc4EQorJT 3TT99JstctUg3Fed04q1ZqDAqYYWPiQnp60s8ZjR9e0IQ0vqCOfMwQFGkN5gOITlrG/W d87XNgrewZt1aXT9PDPY0vBirY4zhkJSrhwW4=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer; b=rdlQS1MlVlxC6z8iKtwUsY+qxw37G18bt7lj3ULqCnokaq7XZRbxC6uNMglQBdKGiD xJ4LWgP7GWElplzKOvpMiZIwkoJLtRy4YThkJhZtvqAiOcknyx9yp3uBarS/SwT/404t jD1gj0pLllZjMYxzZwDZ2UEp22e4pashpqJ70=
In-reply-to: <4AB38735.5040309 at lachy.id.au>
List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4AB23DB0.50705 at lachy.id.au> <4AB38735.5040309 at lachy.id.au>
Sender: Joseph Holsten <josephholsten at gmail.com>

The suggested text sounds fine, but I'm not sure I understand theexpected behavior of reserved but unresolvable "about" URIs.


On Sep 18, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

The revised text I've suggested for section 5 is as follows: [...]
5.1 Reserved "about" URIs [...]
  Other specifications MAY reserve additional "about" URIs.
  Applications attempting to resolve reserved "about" URIs that are
  not defined to be resolvable, MAY treat such URIs as being
  unreserved.

Doesn't this defeat the purpose of reserving an unresolvable aboutURI? If applications can treat unresolvable "about" URIs (such asabout:legacy-compat) as unreserved, what exactly is being reserved forthem?

--
Joseph Holsten
http://josephholsten.com
mailto:joseph at josephholsten.com
tel:+1-918-948-6747

Prev by Date: [Uri-review] Review Request of session: Scheme
Next by Date: [Uri-review] Fwd: Request for Comments: 8-Oct-2009 LCWD of Widgets 1.0: Widget URIs; deadline 10 November
Previous by thread: [Uri-review] Review Request of session: Scheme
Next by thread: [Uri-review] Fwd: Request for Comments: 8-Oct-2009 LCWD of Widgets 1.0: Widget URIs; deadline 10 November
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread