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

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

A small clarification to Eliot's comment: the *provisional* registry is FCFS, 
but there is still a possibility for a hold-up come the time this is advanced to 
a permanent registration.  The good news is that by raising this here and now 
(rather than waiting for a permanent registration review), there's a better 
chance that a consensus on this issue can emerge before the protocol is very 
widely deployed.  So, thank you for doing that!

#g


On 08/05/2023 09:18, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

-- 
Graham Klyne
mailto:[e-mail]
http://www.ninebynine.org
Mastodon: @[e-mail]
GitHub/Skype: @gklyne