Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-00.txt

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <> Tue, 18 October 2011 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C6321F8B3B for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qRTVm327BpXW for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2816721F8B23 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkas6 with SMTP id s6so1235495bka.31 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=qNZ7eDyTsBC0b63/arckXRF89SaZ4IdfDsi95cTLss4=; b=Fdyktdf7fgJVKXp4FVzeH5AGk3Y93fAfeCS82cFJ7k95CMpte0WeTNy8PzrK7/qR1T DXAfJXFjkaQtJHYwq4x/HO+FfK6ytaLhUOk5Qwq+VCKwbsBgQZ2Pnpmeh37LLVQz9Hvj a98KsPOmBQWNkwfM3J7kAyQ7+U5pZHl8PXDBQ=
Received: by with SMTP id d27mr2475462bkd.93.1318957961119; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id u18sm2912978bkn.6.2011. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:13:20 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040406010500050505010805"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:12:43 -0000

Hi Frank,

My response as document's editor.

18.10.2011 9:52, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> On 18 October 2011 08:09, Jiankang YAO wrote:
>>   Pls kindly help to review it before 25 Oct.
> Section 2.1:
> Please replace 'segment' by '*pchar' and import pchar
> instead of segment from STD 66.  The * indicates the
> main point "zero or more" (unlike<segment-nz>), and
> pchar is for me clearer than segment:  Above all it's
> none of the five terms for slightly different paths.

Well, RFC 3986 defines:

>     segment       = *pchar

So "/segment/" is no different from "/*pchar/".  I actually see no 
benefit from changing this definition, but if there is WG consensus on 
such change, it will be incorporated in the doc.

> The SPU gibberish is just ugly, please replace it by
> "registered token" or similar.

SPT is used not to say "special-purpose 'about' URI token"; and this 
implies the main purpose of creating *special-purpose* URIs/tokens.  I 
actually think this is the best though a bit obscure terminology.  
Please propose something particular in lieu of SPU/SPT terminology, if 
you want changes, and such proposals will be considered.

>    Ditto SPT.  Get rid
> of almost all MUSTard in this perfectly harmless URI
> scheme, only about:blank deserves a MUST.

Please provide particular cases of using MUST an justification for 
removing such MUSTs.

> For more than six months I try to get about:about in
> this draft, nothing happened.

about:about isn't appropriate for special-purpose URI:

>     defining an SPT should
>     only be used as a last resort approach, when a strict limitation on
>     handling 'about' URI with such SPT is necessary.

I see no such necessity for strict limitation.  One application might 
want to resolve about:about to wen page saying "I have no idea what is 
about:about", other will resolve to list of supported 'about' URIs, the 
third will do else, and I personally don't think we should unify 
handling of particularly this URI.  But, again, if there is WG 
consensus, I'll add the text.

>   Instead there are tons
> of obscure terms (SPU, SPT), a pointless registry for
> one word (blank),

We do not define a registry-of-limited-to-one-entry-size, we define 
extensible registry.  At last two tokens will be defined by HTML5, and 
whoever knows how many will be later.  It is pointless to say "pointless".

> and additional tons of MUSTs and
> MUST NOTs dealing with something that doesn't exist.
> This draft is now in the worst state for this year,
> that is not very encouraging for this trivial task.
> Claiming that there are no about: IRIs makes no sense
> as soon as there is an<about-query>, cf. RFC 3987
> <iquery>  and<ifragment>.

I know absolutely no application supporting 'about' IRIs.  Please 
provide some examples of 'about' IRIs which are in use now, or which 
make use of i18ned queries/fragments.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

> -Frank
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list