Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Review Provisional registration for app URI scheme

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:29:27 +0100

>
> Do you think "app" would be acceptable again if we brought back in focus
> the application aspect, and perhaps also covered non-file resources such
> as UI states?
>

No, "app" is just a seriously bad idea, how about "tapp" matching the title
of your I-D "The Archive and Packaging Pointer". Not "tapps", folks would
think that the S is about security, and you don't have that in your I-D.

While at it, your I-D doesn't mention <base> as a related concept, maybe it
should.

---

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:45:16 +0000

"tapp" would confuse with https://www.usenix.org/conference/tapp16 :)

As I posted I've gone for Roy's "arcp" now - and then I'll rename
"Packaging" to "Package" to avoid cardboard associations.

I'll add something about "base" -- I think a reference to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.1 should do.

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718