Re: [Geopriv] Teasing apart: constraints on dereference URI

From: Andrew Newton ^lt;andy@hxr.us>
Date: Thu Jul 27 2006 - 14:42:04 EDT

James M. Polk wrote:
>> Finally, how many people desire a middle ground? Perhaps where the
>> ABNF, XML Schema or other grammar specification allows for any URI
>> scheme but there is an IANA registry listing the allowed dereference
>> URI schemes and associated protocols?
>
> I think any IANA Registry here will point back to a Standards Track RFC
> that defined the usage and semantics, which your question is not
> allowing. Therefore, for what you have immediately above, I disagree.

I guess that may have been too much hand waving on my part. So let me
ask you this question: if the grammar were to only specify "URI" and no
particular kind of URI, yet the kinds of URIs allowed must have to pass
some sort of review before their use in the Location header is
considered acceptable, would you find favor in this approach?

And if so, how would you implement it?

-andy

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:42:04 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 27 2006 - 14:42:29 EDT