Re: [Uri-review] New icon URI scheme vs new URN namespace

I was referring to the recent discussion on this list about which term should be used (URI vs URL).

We have URIs, and they come in different flavors and colors. When we have a need to identify a new resource, we first look at the existing schemes to see if they are applicable. If not we propose new schemes. URN offers specific benefits and shortcomings. Their name is a shortcoming when it comes to getting the web developers community at large to recognize and use them. This doesn't make them less useful, but it does pose an adoption limitation.

The point I was trying to make it that just because something *can* be implemented as a urn: namespace, doesn't mean it *must* be. At the same time, I think the authors should explain why they think it should/shouldn't be.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:uri-review-bounces@ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 3:51 PM
> To: uri-review@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Uri-review] New icon URI scheme vs new URN namespace
> 
>  "We are trying to get people to stop making distinctions between URNs,
> URLs, and URIs."
> 
> Could you clarify that sentence.  It seems to suggest that URN, URL, and URI
> all mean the same thing, and I'm sure that's not what you're trying to say.
> 
> --Ray
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eran Hammer-Lahav" <eran@hueniverse.com>
> To: "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org>; "Pierre-Antoine LaFayette"
> <pierre@alumni.utoronto.ca>
> Cc: <uri-review@ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 6:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [Uri-review] New icon URI scheme vs new URN namespace
> 
> 
> >I disagree with making general classifications.
> >
> > URNs suffer a significant lack of public understanding and stigma
> > (regardless whether it is justified or not). We are trying to get people
> > to stop making distinctions between URNs, URLs, and URIs. The decision
> > whether to register a new URI scheme vs. a new URN namespace must not
> be
> > limited to whether it is practical to use a URN. I have a few use cases
> > for a new URI scheme where a urn: prefix will pose a serious adoption
> > problem because of lack of URN understanding (draft pending).
> >
> > As for the icon URI scheme, it is up to the authors to decide if their
> > scheme will suffer or benefit from using the urn: scheme and make their
> > case for it.
> >
> > EHL
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:uri-review-bounces@ietf.org]
> >> On Behalf Of David Booth
> >> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 5:44 PM
> >> To: Pierre-Antoine LaFayette
> >> Cc: uri-review@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Uri-review] New icon URI scheme vs new URN namespace
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 13:42 -0400, Pierre-Antoine LaFayette wrote:
> >> > In my provisional URI scheme registration request with IANA, my
> >> > reviewer noted that it may be preferable to use a URN namespace
> rather
> >> > than create a new URI scheme.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > E.g.
> >> >
> >> > urn:icon:ext:pdf:small
> >> > urn:icon:mime:text:plain:64
> >> > urn:icon:unknown
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > instead of:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > icon:.pdf;small
> >> > icon:text:plain;64
> >> > icon:unknown
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I wanted to run this by the list to see what the general opinion is on
> >> > this matter. What are the advantages/disadvantages and limitations of
> >> > each? I'm not sure which is more appropriate for the icon URI's use
> >> > cases.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > http://draft-icon-uri-scheme.googlecode.com/hg/draft-lafayette-icon-
> ur
> >> > i-scheme-00.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I agree with your reviewer.  IMO, if there isn't a new protocol defined
> >> for it,
> >> there is no need for a new URI scheme.  URNs are intended for exactly
> >> this
> >> kind of thing.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Booth, Ph.D.
> >> Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
> >>
> >> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> >> reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Uri-review mailing list
> >> Uri-review@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
> > _______________________________________________
> > Uri-review mailing list
> > Uri-review@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review