Subject: RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-paskin-doi-uri-03.txt (updated from -02.txt)

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 05:04:29 -0400

Some more comments:

At 15:35 03/05/16 +0100, Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) wrote:
>Hi Larry:
>
>Thanks for the feedback on the "doi" URI Internet-Draft. You've raised some
>useful points which we hope to have answered below.
>
>Tony & Eamonn
>
>
>Tony Hammond
>
>Advanced Technology Group, Elsevier Ltd
>32 Jamestown Road, London, NW1 7BY, UK
>
><tel:+44-20-7424-4445>
><mailto:[email-masked]>
>
>
>
>
>#1 - Why not URN? To answer that point we note this passage in RFC 2396
>
>         "Although many URL schemes are named after protocols, this does not
>    imply that the only way to access the URL's resource is via the named
>    protocol."
>
>Is it now to be suggested that new candidate URI schemes must be tightly
>bound to an Internet protocol?
>
>We also note that the functional requirements for URNs (RFC 1737) do not
>coincide with those of DOI, e.g. URN encoding.

re. character encoding, URN uses UTF-8. DOI uses UTF-8 (which is
just the right thing to do, by the way!). So you are probably speaking
about something else. Can you elaborate?

>Furthermore, URN syntax
>places additional restrictive syntactic constraints on "doi" URIs.

What exactly? That you cannot use slashes? If you don't use them
for hierarchy/relative URI processing, don't use them at all.

>We view registered URI schemes such as "tel", "fax", etc as being valid and
>see a useful precedent for a loose binding of URI scheme to Internet
>protocol such as exhibited by DOI.

The problem is not the linking to an Internet protocol, it's that
the definition of how to find out what a praticular doi: URI refers
to.

More on syntax:

   4  Lexical Equivalence for the "doi" URI Scheme

- Please don't use the term 'lexical' equivalence.
- The update work on URIs focuses much more on 'start off with
   the canonical form'. You should probably do that, too.
- For the hex characters after the %-sign, the default is now
   upper-case. For the scheme, it's lower case. For the rest,
   it's your choice, lower case seems fine.
- Having a separate section for examples looks strange.
   Please make that 4.1.
- Give some more examples, so that
- How is case equivalence handled for non-ASCII characters?

Regards,    Martin.
_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review