IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Pierre-Antoine LaFayette <pierre@alumni.utoronto.ca> Fri, 30 April 2010 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <pierre@alumni.utoronto.ca>
X-Original-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26FE53A6868 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.142
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.142 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.766, BAYES_50=0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gzQjxN9gfdQ9 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com (mail-qy0-f181.google.com [209.85.221.181]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7C53A6810 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk11 with SMTP id 11so444795qyk.13 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.78.148 with SMTP id l20mr1878394qak.67.1272649356261; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com (mail-qy0-f181.google.com [209.85.221.181]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6sm3971738qwd.43.2010.04.30.10.42.33 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk11 with SMTP id 11so444574qyk.13 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.80.65 with SMTP id s1mr1077335qak.239.1272649351435; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.48.1 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Pierre-Antoine LaFayette <pierre@alumni.utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:42:09 -0400
Message-ID: <r2q743256c51004301042jdcf55b3ey6e83dba78d82f943@mail.gmail.com>
To: uri-review@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00c09f8a4fad844acd048577c444"
Subject: [Uri-review] New icon URI scheme vs new URN namespace
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:43:00 -0000

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

Thanks,
Pierre.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email