Re: [Uri-review] Two new URI schemes for review
"Daniel R. Tobias" <dan@tobias.name> Sat, 05 May 2012 17:39 UTC
Return-Path: <dan@tobias.name>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ECFD21F8549 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 May 2012 10:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mf4TBT5kqFiT for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 May 2012 10:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a80.g.dreamhost.com (caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com [208.113.200.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC8821F8543 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 May 2012 10:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a80.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a80.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B64D37A06B; Sat, 5 May 2012 10:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (c-76-109-109-128.hsd1.fl.comcast.net [76.109.109.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mail@dan.tobias.name) by homiemail-a80.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B0B8137A065; Sat, 5 May 2012 10:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan@tobias.name>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 13:39:16 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4FA565C4.24634.7DCA2FCB@dan.tobias.name>
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <4FA56349.4070801@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <4F9EB644.60309@cs.tcd.ie>, <CA+9kkMC=m44HFyA30Cj4mQB9zBS7n_xX2vn7hHJJwjD45-e8jQ@mail.gmail.com>, <4FA56349.4070801@cs.tcd.ie>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.63)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-description: Mail message body
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Two new URI schemes for review
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 17:39:53 -0000
On 5 May 2012 at 18:28, Stephen Farrell wrote: > I've no particular attachment to the "//" other than > I'll have to change a bit of code if we change, but > that's more of an irritant, so doing the right thing > is the plan. I need to check with co-authors as well > though and of course decide for sure what I think the > right thing is:-) Now, one more thing about that is, if you do in fact continue to use the "//" part, why is that part mandatory even if no authority section is used? Why not just omit it in cases where there is no hostname, and start such URIs with no slashes or one slash after the colon (depending on whether a hierarchical path is involved)? I know the "file:" URI scheme also requires the double slashes, which makes for a messy structure when the authority section is usually null and thus you have three slashes. It would seem to have made more sense there too to omit the double slash when no hostname is needed, as was done with the "news:" URI, which can optionally specify a server with double slashes but can omit that part as well. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
- [Uri-review] Two new URI schemes for review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Uri-review] Two new URI schemes for review Eric Johnson
- Re: [Uri-review] Two new URI schemes for review Ted Hardie
- Re: [Uri-review] Two new URI schemes for review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Uri-review] Two new URI schemes for review Daniel R. Tobias
- Re: [Uri-review] Two new URI schemes for review Stephen Farrell
- [Uri-review] draft-farrell-decade-ni (was: Two ne… Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] draft-farrell-decade-ni Eric Johnson
- Re: [Uri-review] draft-farrell-decade-ni Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] draft-farrell-decade-ni Eric Johnson
- Re: [Uri-review] draft-farrell-decade-ni Graham Klyne