Unofficial but common URI schemes

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Unofficial but common URI schemes

Dave Thaler-2

In a previous meeting I believe we agreed that we should encourage third-party

registrations of URI schemes that the owners didn’t register.   And indeed we

updated the language (e.g. around security considerations) to clarify how to do so.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme lists 71 unregistered URI schemes in

the “Unofficial but common URI schemes”.   So it seems the right thing to do is

to try to follow the 4395bis process for all 71 of them.

 

Not doing so would mean, IMO, we’d basically be leaving Wikipedia to be the

unofficial registry that people will actually use (and check for uniqueness when

submitting registrations) instead of the IANA registry.

 

I expect we’d want them all to be provisional (not permanent), and that we don’t

want a mailing list review of all 71 of them.

 

Does this sound reasonable?   Just want to check before submitting 71 IANA

requests for third-party registrations.

 

-Dave

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unofficial but common URI schemes

Peter Saint-Andre-2
On 7/12/12 2:04 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:

> In a previous meeting I believe we agreed that we should encourage
> third-party
>
> registrations of URI schemes that the owners didn’t register.   And
> indeed we
>
> updated the language (e.g. around security considerations) to clarify
> how to do so.
>
>  
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme lists 71 unregistered URI schemes in
>
> the “Unofficial but common URI schemes”.   So it seems the right thing
> to do is
>
> to try to follow the 4395bis process for all 71 of them.
>
>  
>
> Not doing so would mean, IMO, we’d basically be leaving Wikipedia to be the
>
> unofficial registry that people will actually use (and check for
> uniqueness when
>
> submitting registrations) instead of the IANA registry.
>
>  
>
> I expect we’d want them all to be provisional (not permanent), and that
> we don’t
>
> want a mailing list review of all 71 of them.
>
>  
>
> Does this sound reasonable?   Just want to check before submitting 71 IANA
> requests for third-party registrations.

It does sound reasonable. I hope you wrote a little script to automate
all of that. :)

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Unofficial but common URI schemes

Dave Thaler-2
> > Does this sound reasonable?   Just want to check before submitting 71
> IANA
> > requests for third-party registrations.
>
> It does sound reasonable. I hope you wrote a little script to automate all of
> that. :)

Not yet, I didn't want to spend time writing the script until we agreed it's
reasonable :)

-Dave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unofficial but common URI schemes

Martin J. Dürst
I agree it's a good idea! I'd like to hear from Graham specifically,
because he's the reviewer, and if/when you send everything to IANA,
he'll have to have a look at it.

I'd also not send 71 separate mails, but put everything in a single big
mail. That way, the need for scripts may be quite a bit lower, too.

Regards,   Martin.


On 2012/07/14 3:33, Dave Thaler wrote:

>>> Does this sound reasonable?   Just want to check before submitting 71
>> IANA
>>> requests for third-party registrations.
>>
>> It does sound reasonable. I hope you wrote a little script to automate all of
>> that. :)
>
> Not yet, I didn't want to spend time writing the script until we agreed it's
> reasonable :)
>
> -Dave