Re: [Uri-review] Request for review of "ab:" URI scheme

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

Hello Barry, all,

22.04.2011 21:41, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> In Introduction, section 1:
> ...
>> Shouldn't the reference to RFC 3986 go here?
> Actually, that was my error; that's not in section 1, but in section
> 2.5.  And the reference is already earlier in section 2.5, so we're
> fine.
This is OK.
>>>>         The extension information (the "extensions" element in the ABNF
>>>>         above) is available for use in future extensions.  It might allow
>>>>         for things such as dynamic subsets of an address book (for
>>>>         example, "addrbook:personal?name.contains=fred").  There are no
>>>>         extensions defined at this time.
>> I think some words about how these extensions are specified would be
>> relevant.
> I don't.  It's well known what "future extensions" means.  I don't see
> that we need to tell people about writing extension RFCs.
OK, -as is- is fine.
>> Anyway,<paburi>  rule will make the reader a bit confused.  The
>> <addrbook-uri>  or<addrbookuri>  would obviously be more appropriate here.
> I disagree.  Again, ABNF construct names often don't correlate to the
> strings that they produce.  This is fine as it is.
So how will the reader know that the 'addrbook' URI is defined in 
<paburi> rule?  Let's employ common sense.

Having no introducing sentence to this template field is not good as 
well, I think.  Therefore I do insist on putting the following contents 
of URI Scheme Syntax:

>
> The "addrbook" URI takes th form of <addrbook-uri> rule below, defined 
> using ABNF [RFC5234]:
>
> addrbook-uri = "addrbook:" addrbook [ "?" extensions]
> addrbook       = segment
> extensions     = query
>
> where <segment> and <query> are defined in Appendix A of RFC 3986 
> [RFC3986]


>>>>   I see RFC 4395 is normative reference here.  I do not think reading
>>>> this
>>>>   document should be compulsory for understanding your document.  Maybe
>>>>   Informative reference is more appropriate here.
>>> Clearly not; see below.
>>>
>> I did not find anything related to this issue "below".
> It was right there: your concern that someone might not understand
> that we used ABNF.  I suppose one could say that the 3986 reference is
> sufficient for that, but I'm happier leaving 4395 as normative.
4395 has even no mention of "ABNF" or its full name.  Moreover, having 
4395 document as an *Informative* reference is something like a 
tradition in URI-scheme-specifying docs :-).

Also agree with all responses from Alexey.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Barry
>