[Uri-review] Re: [art] Alternative representation of URIs in YANG

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

> On Dec 4, 2025, at 7:08 PM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> A URL is a URI that is also a locator.  That is, if you can resolve it, it will lead you to something.  

Yes, locators is our primary interest.  We have zero interest in URNs.


> Those are definitely more likely to use the same authority form that HTTP does, but there isn't a firm guarantee.

Grrr


> The only safe container for a URI generically is a sequence of bytes or characters (the difference between each is important in many cases, but not here).  The same is generically true for URLs as well, though under certain narrower definitions it might be safe to carry them in other ways.  See https://url.spec.whatwg.org/ for an example of one such narrow definition.  However, that definition includes file: and blob: URLs, which are more complicated than you might like.

Egads, I don't see an out yet.

Context:
  - The must-have schemes are http: and https:
  - The nice-to-have schemes include file:, ftp:, scp:, and mailto:
  - Lesser nice-to-haves include: ws: wss:
  - No interest in the blob: scheme

FWIW, in the YANG module, it is possible to make the "scheme" field be an enumeration.  That is, the scheme can be locked down to any subset of the above. 

Is there a suitable name for some subset of the above?  How about:
constrained-url
structured-url
decomposed-url
http-and-https-url
any other suggestion, besides a sequence of bytes or characters ;) 

Kent