Re: [urn] IANA repository ... draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-reg-02

[Alfred Hönes <[e-mail]>]

Marc Blanchet wrote:

> Le 2012-03-25 à 14:59, Leslie Daigle a écrit :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is this point in the document:
>>
>>>  [[ NOTE: It would be preferable to restore the generic, most
>>>   universally supported (HTML) form of the registry be identified by an
>>>   implementation-neutral URL, as previously supported by IANA:
>>>   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces>.  Yet, currently
>>>   this URI and similar forms all resolve to an XML version.
>>>   The content there should link to alternate forms (.xml, .txt), and
>>>   those alternate versions should indicate the *other* versions; i.e.,
>>>   where the .txt version (currently only available at ftp.IANA.ORG)
>>>   also says, "This registry is also available in XML and plain text
>>>   formats.", it should better say: "This registry is also available in
>>>   HTML and XML formats."  Similarly, the XML form should point to the
>>>   HTML and plain text forms. ]]
>>
>> actually a question for the URN document, or rather something for the
>> IESG/IAB to explain or take up with IANA?  I.e., it seems to me that
>> this is a broader question of references to IANA registries, and not
>> just *this* reference to *an* IANA registry?
>
> - actually, the note above (the extract from the document) is wrong.
>   + each XML registry has in the note: "This registry is also
>     available in plain text."  and the .txt is available by http.

Marc,
the first statement may be correct, but I've seen examples of the
second being definitely not holding any more.

>   + the html version is redundant. the xml version has xsl statement
>     for browsers to render it in html on the fly. so no need to have
>     a separate html page.

I do not agree.  This is not universally true.
For these registries, all I see in my browser is an offer to save
the .xml as a file, and hence I don't get a chance to click on
a link to an alternate format.
At least some of the supported .txt URIs seem to be non-intuitive;
e.g. you don't get the .txt form by appending ".txt" to the generic URI.

  Alfred.

>
> Marc.
>>
>>
>> Leslie.