Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" URI scheme

[[e-mail]]

Hi Eliot,

We did do both some general search, and checked against the URI schema 
registry when starting work on the protocol, and are not aware of any 
problematic existing use or conflicts the the use of the URI scheme name.

The closest confusion we are aware of with 'at' is the Hayes AT command 
originally used with modems. We are unaware of any URI scheme specifically 
for the Hayes AT command set, and while that command set is still in 
broad use, it does not seem likely to start using one now.

"at" matches our protocol name ("AT" stands for "Authenticated Transfer"). 
There is a bit of wordplay going on with "@" (the "at symbol"), which is 
used as a prefix convention in social media to indicate a user handle. AT 
Protocol is primarily used for social media applications (at least, that 
is the focus at present).

As precedent, there are several other two-character URI schemes in the 
current registry.

URIs starting with "at://" are already being used by several 
implementations of the AT Protocol. At this point it seems like a change 
would only add to confusion.

--bryan

On Sun, 7 May 2023, Eliot Lear wrote:

> As another casual observer, can I suggest that you use a slightly more 
> descriptive scheme name?  "at" is heavily overloaded, and a name that 
> provides at least a guess what this is will serve the user better.