Re: [Uri-review] Request for review

Andrew,

When I try to learn more about "open packaging", I'm confronted with a
request to accept a license that I'm hesitant to accept.  Therefore, I
have not read that document.

But if I assume it's just some kind of packaging format, like
multipart/zip/etc.., I have a serious concern about the need for this
new URI scheme.

If I have a package identified by this URI;

http://www.mysite.com/my.package

Then why can't I identify the "a/b/foo.xml" part contained therein, by this URI?

http://www.mysite.com/my.package/a/b/foo.xml

It seems to me to meet the requirements that are explicitly mentioned
in your registration template. e.g. being able to use the URI of the
package as a base URI for parts.

There's other concerns too, about the encoding a URI inside the
authority component of another URI, but the concern described above
trumps it so I'll refrain from getting into that for now.

Cheers,

BTW, thanks for following the procedure described in RFC 4395.  I
think this is our first registration request under the new guidelines,
so it's nice to see it in good shape.

Mark.

On 5/11/06, Andrey Shur <andreysh@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> This mail is sending to request the submission of the "pack" Uri scheme
> registration template (attached) for review.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> - Andrey Shur
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
Uri-review@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review