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

[David Booth <[e-mail]>]

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-uri-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.