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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> 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.

>>>        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.

> 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.

>> >  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.

Barry