Subject: [Uri-review] Review request: widget URI scheme

From: Robin Berjon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:54:09 +0100

Hi,

on behalf of the W3C WebApps Working Group I would like to request review for the registration of the "widget" URI scheme.

The filled out registration template can be found at:

  http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/registration.txt

And the specification at:

  http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/

There is one specific aspect on which we would like to particularly solicit your guidance. While the fact that implementations are shipping presently has produced the need to define this URI scheme, we believe that we may update it at a later date to take into account use cases not yet addressed by our technology stack (the W3C Widgets family of specifications). As such, we would like to know if it is best registered as provisional (the scheme is intended to evolve) or permanent (the technology it is a part of is intended to become a permanent part of the landscape). We are happy with either option, we mostly ask because it is unclear to us from RFC4395 what the guiding principles should be in electing one over the other.

Thanking you in advance for your review,

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:56:30 +0100

> Thanking you in advance for your review,

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

- 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.

- 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.

Best regards, Julian