Hi Julian, all, very sorry for the long delay in replying, I was unfortunately caught up in other things and am now catching up.
On Feb 26, 2010, at 13:56 , Julian Reschke wrote: > A few things that I stumbled upon on a quick read: > > - The registration does not include a reference to the spec that actually > defines the URI scheme Duh. Talk about forgetting the obvious! It's now there. > - Neither the registration nor the spec actually define the syntax (I > couldn't see an ABNF...). You probably can re-use the grammar in RFC 3986, > but you really should state that. I may be mistaken but my understanding from RFC4395 leads me to believe that reusing the generic syntax (as indicated) is a good thing. > - It appears that the spec tries to define things in terms of IRIs; my > understanding is that what you need to define are URIs (plain ASCII, as per > RFC 3986), and then optionally include additional information about how to > map from/to IRIs. I tried to look for examples of this but failed, which makes me wonder if I'm misunderstanding the request. Would you happen to have a pointer handy? Thanks a lot for your comments! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
