On 11/26/2010 6:18 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 26.11.2010 05:20, Brett Zamir wrote:
I'd like to propose reserving two protocols for use with
navigator.registerProtocolHandler: "urn" and "xri" (or possibly xriNN
where NN is a version number).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Resource_Identifier for info
on XRI (basically allows the equivalents of URN but with a user-defined
namespace and without needing ICANN/IANA approval). Although it was
You don't need ICANN/IANA approval.
You can use informal URN namespaces, use a URN scheme that allows just
grabbing a name (such as URN:UUID) *or* write a small spec; for the
latter, the approval is *IETF* consensus (write an Internet Draft,
then ask the IESG for publication as RFC).
My apologies for the lack of clarity on the approval process. I see all
the protocols listed with them, so I wasn't clear.
In any case, I still see the need for both types being reserved (and for
their subnamespaces targeted by the protocol handler), in that
namespacing is built into the XRI unlike for informal URNs which could
potentially conflict.
thanks,
Brett
