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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Graham.

> I didn't really see any technical case above.  (Though I could imagine a
> more richly defined addrbook: URI having utility on a scale to compare with
> mailto: - from my perspective, SIEVE looks like a fairly narrow use-case,
> though maybe I misunderstand the context of expected SIEVE usage.)

The "more richly" is the reason for the extension stuff after the "?".
 We anticipate other uses of it, which will add refinement and
details, but we don't have those to hand now, so we're leaving them to
be defined later.  Browser-based applications that access online and
offline address books could likely use these, for example.  Things
like "add to address book" links might be very useful.

>> The main issue for Sieve uses cases is that Sieve scripts can be typed by
>> users manually (using a normal text editor), not all Sieve scripts are
>> generated by special UIs. For manual editing URIs should be short(ish) - in
>> order to avoid typing long strings and risking introducing errors. This was
>> the main reason for not choosing URNs.
>
> FWIW, This is the argument I find hardest to dismiss.  As in so many of
> these discussions around URIs, the core issues are often social, not
> technical.  I can imagine alternative approaches, but without better
> understanding the context of intended use it would be rash of me to push
> alternative designs.
>
> So here's a question to start with:  in the Sieve context where you see
> addrbook: URIs being used, do you anticipate that other kinds of URI might
> also be used?

We do.  The document
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sieve-external-lists-07
suggests LDAP, ACAP, and CalDAV URIs as three likely ones.  The point
here is that any URI that can be considered to resolve to some sort of
list is useful here.

We had long discussions about what to use for the name that points to
the list.  We included opaque strings (no interoperability at all), a
registry of well-known strings, and other such.  We settled on URIs
only after a lot of discussion... so this wasn't just a casual "OK,
let's use URIs; next issue?" thing.

Barry