RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-paskin-doi-uri-03.txt (updated from -02.txt)
Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org> Mon, 19 May 2003 09:05 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA12750 for <uri-review-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2003 05:05:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4J8Y2X29617 for uri-review-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 May 2003 04:34:02 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4J8Y2B29614 for <uri-review-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2003 04:34:02 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA12746; Mon, 19 May 2003 05:04:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19HgbF-0001Gf-00; Mon, 19 May 2003 05:06:29 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19HgbE-0001Gb-00; Mon, 19 May 2003 05:06:28 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4J8W5B29550; Mon, 19 May 2003 04:32:06 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4J8V3B29505 for <uri-review@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2003 04:31:03 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA12683 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2003 05:01:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19HgYM-0001G7-00 for uri-review@ietf.org; Mon, 19 May 2003 05:03:30 -0400
Received: from tux.w3.org ([18.29.0.27]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19HgYL-0001G3-00 for uri-review@ietf.org; Mon, 19 May 2003 05:03:29 -0400
Received: from enoshima (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27]) by tux.w3.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4J94cxj014898; Mon, 19 May 2003 05:04:39 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030518045619.07669bb8@localhost>
X-Sender: duerst@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58.J
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 05:04:29 -0400
To: "Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>, 'Larry Masinter' <LMM@acm.org>
From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Subject: RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-paskin-doi-uri-03.txt (updated from -02.txt)
Cc: hardie@qualcomm.com, uri-review@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <54A600C436EA694581B93E4BD4D4788A06B739EA@elslonexc004.wins .epress.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: uri-review-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: uri-review-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Some more comments: At 15:35 03/05/16 +0100, Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) wrote: >Hi Larry: > >Thanks for the feedback on the "doi" URI Internet-Draft. You've raised some >useful points which we hope to have answered below. > >Tony & Eamonn > > >Tony Hammond > >Advanced Technology Group, Elsevier Ltd >32 Jamestown Road, London, NW1 7BY, UK > ><tel:+44-20-7424-4445> ><mailto:t.hammond@elsevier.com> > > > > >#1 - Why not URN? To answer that point we note this passage in RFC 2396 > > "Although many URL schemes are named after protocols, this does not > imply that the only way to access the URL's resource is via the named > protocol." > >Is it now to be suggested that new candidate URI schemes must be tightly >bound to an Internet protocol? > >We also note that the functional requirements for URNs (RFC 1737) do not >coincide with those of DOI, e.g. URN encoding. re. character encoding, URN uses UTF-8. DOI uses UTF-8 (which is just the right thing to do, by the way!). So you are probably speaking about something else. Can you elaborate? >Furthermore, URN syntax >places additional restrictive syntactic constraints on "doi" URIs. What exactly? That you cannot use slashes? If you don't use them for hierarchy/relative URI processing, don't use them at all. >We view registered URI schemes such as "tel", "fax", etc as being valid and >see a useful precedent for a loose binding of URI scheme to Internet >protocol such as exhibited by DOI. The problem is not the linking to an Internet protocol, it's that the definition of how to find out what a praticular doi: URI refers to. More on syntax: 4 Lexical Equivalence for the "doi" URI Scheme - Please don't use the term 'lexical' equivalence. - The update work on URIs focuses much more on 'start off with the canonical form'. You should probably do that, too. - For the hex characters after the %-sign, the default is now upper-case. For the scheme, it's lower case. For the rest, it's your choice, lower case seems fine. - Having a separate section for examples looks strange. Please make that 4.1. - Give some more examples, so that - How is case equivalence handled for non-ASCII characters? Regards, Martin. _______________________________________________ Uri-review mailing list Uri-review@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
- [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: dr… hardie
- RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be… Larry Masinter
- RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be… Martin Duerst