Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote: ><hat type='registrar'/> > >On 7/9/13 9:53 PM, Peter Waher wrote: >> Hello Ralph >> >> Thanks for your mail. You're absolutely correct. It was sloppy of me >> to propose a URI scheme with the same name as the previous xmpp >> scheme. I'm sorry. >> >> [ .. ] >Defining a new URI scheme is not an effort to be taken lightly. Please >see RFC 4395, in particular Section 2.1: > > [..] > >Does your proposal pass that test?
I agree with Peter. Just introducing a new scheme doesn't feel right to me. At the very least I'd like to see a rational for not using the xmpp scheme, which should be able to handle the use cases, that goes beyond the lack of character-by-character equivalence after the scheme component, compared to HTTP(S) URIs. -- ralphm
