Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" URI scheme

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bryan,

As Alex mentioned, I wasn't referring to URI schemes, but rather that 
the word "at" is not descript, reused in many different contexts, from 
Austria to a preposition, to a scheduling command in UNIX to various 
other acronym expansions.  My understanding is that the registry is 
FCFS, and so this is *advice*. Whatever you choose you'll be stuck 
with.  If you even added an extra character or two that could make more 
clear what this is, you may find it helpful later on.

Eliot

On 08.05.23 00:14, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> Hi Eliot,
>
> We did do both some general search, and checked against the URI schema 
> registry when starting work on the protocol, and are not aware of any 
> problematic existing use or conflicts the the use of the URI scheme name.
>
> The closest confusion we are aware of with 'at' is the Hayes AT 
> command originally used with modems. We are unaware of any URI scheme 
> specifically for the Hayes AT command set, and while that command set 
> is still in broad use, it does not seem likely to start using one now.
>
> "at" matches our protocol name ("AT" stands for "Authenticated 
> Transfer"). There is a bit of wordplay going on with "@" (the "at 
> symbol"), which is used as a prefix convention in social media to 
> indicate a user handle. AT Protocol is primarily used for social media 
> applications (at least, that is the focus at present).
>
> As precedent, there are several other two-character URI schemes in the 
> current registry.
>
> URIs starting with "at://" are already being used by several 
> implementations of the AT Protocol. At this point it seems like a 
> change would only add to confusion.
>
> --bryan
>
> On Sun, 7 May 2023, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
>> As another casual observer, can I suggest that you use a slightly 
>> more descriptive scheme name?  "at" is heavily overloaded, and a name 
>> that provides at least a guess what this is will serve the user better.