Opened 8 years ago

Closed 8 years ago

#73 closed defect (wontfix)

Decide on organization-specific schemes

Reported by: evnikita2@… Owned by:
Priority: minor Milestone:
Component: 4395bis Version:
Severity: - Keywords:
Cc:

Description

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2011Aug/0002.html:


Section 3.8:

Organizations that desire a private name space for URI scheme names
are encouraged to use a prefix based on their domain name, expressed
in reverse order. For example, a URI scheme name of com-example-info
might be registered by the vendor that owns the example.com domain
name.

Do we actually need this? I have never even heard of any attempts to
register such scheme.

Change History (4)

comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by masinter@…

I don't think there have been any such registrations or even scheme names.

It's not a bad idea to use faceted scheme names for private application URI schemes, but just orgname.application.purpose or even orgname.purpose or applicationname.purpose would also be OK and useful.

comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by chris@…

WG consensus is to remove this statement from the text. See:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2011Aug/0058.html

comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by duerst@…

Moved from #106 (duplicate):

The reason is that there were no actual usages. But now, there is a use (see http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/com-eventbrite-attendee), as reported at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg01548.html.

I guess we should restore this text.

comment:4 Changed 8 years ago by masinter@…

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from new to closed

As per discussions on the mailing list, this might not be widely used but there is at least one instance, and no apparent reason to remove this advice at this time.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.