headers
Edward O'Connor | 5 Jul 2012 20:43
Face
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

[about] about:invalid

Hi,

On yesterday's telcon[1], the CSS WG resolved to mint about:invalid,
which is now defined in CSS3 Values and Units as "a URI [that points] to
a non-existent document with a generic error condition."[2] I don't
think "The 'about' URI scheme" needs to change as a result.

Thanks,
Ted

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jul/0109.html
2. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/#attr-notation
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Paul E. Jones | 6 Jul 2012 05:22
Favicon

Re: The "acct" URI scheme

Folks,

The "acct" URI scheme was just moved out of the WebFinger draft and into its
own draft.  As you give further consideration to this scheme, please
consider it within the context of this draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-acct-uri

Cheers!
Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: uri-review-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:uri-review-bounces <at> ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 1:46 AM
> To: uri-review <at> ietf.org
> Cc: jsmarr <at> google.com; 'Mike Jones'; 'Murray S. Kucherawy'; 'Gonzalo
> Salgueiro'
> Subject: [Uri-review] The "acct" URI scheme
> 
> URI Reviewers,
> 
> We are progressing work in the IETF on WebFinger.  As a component of that
> work, we have defined the “acct” URI scheme that we would like to
> register. The “acct” URI scheme was first proposed several years ago in
> the Internet community and already adopted in some implementations
> (including Google+), etc.  The specification attempts to formalize and
> finalize the WebFinger specification, including the “acct” URI scheme.
> 
> The URI scheme registration template  can be found in Section 12.1 of this
> draft:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Melvin Carvalho | 6 Jul 2012 10:29
Picon
Gravatar

Re: The "acct" URI scheme



On 6 July 2012 05:22, Paul E. Jones <paulej <at> packetizer.com> wrote:
Folks,

The "acct" URI scheme was just moved out of the WebFinger draft and into its
own draft.  As you give further consideration to this scheme, please
consider it within the context of this draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-acct-uri

Quick question.

I wonder if "user:" is a more natural prefix to register than acct:

A couple of reasons:

1) user is mentioned in rfc6068 a number of times e.g. mailto:user <at> example.org

2) (minor) "acct" is not actually a word and I've seen it typod as accnt a few times
 

Cheers!
Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: uri-review-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:uri-review-bounces <at> ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 1:46 AM
> To: uri-review <at> ietf.org
> Cc: jsmarr <at> google.com; 'Mike Jones'; 'Murray S. Kucherawy'; 'Gonzalo
> Salgueiro'
> Subject: [Uri-review] The "acct" URI scheme
>
> URI Reviewers,
>
> We are progressing work in the IETF on WebFinger.  As a component of that
> work, we have defined the “acct” URI scheme that we would like to
> register. The “acct” URI scheme was first proposed several years ago in
> the Internet community and already adopted in some implementations
> (including Google+), etc.  The specification attempts to formalize and
> finalize the WebFinger specification, including the “acct” URI scheme.
>
> The URI scheme registration template  can be found in Section 12.1 of this
> draft:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-06.txt
>
> We kindly request that you review the proposed URI scheme.
>
> We look forward to your feedback.
>
> Thanks!
> Paul
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
Uri-review <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
Uri-review <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Murray S. Kucherawy | 6 Jul 2012 05:30
Picon

Re: The "acct" URI scheme

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Paul E. Jones <paulej <at> packetizer.com> wrote:

Folks,

The "acct" URI scheme was just moved out of the WebFinger draft and into its
own draft.  As you give further consideration to this scheme, please
consider it within the context of this draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-acct-uri

Cheers!
Paul



I've got a call for adoption of that draft active in appsawg.  We're going to give it a second week for anyone to complain about processing it that way, and then we'll bring it in.

Salvatore Loreto (incoming co-chair) will be shepherding both documents.

-MSK 

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
Uri-review <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Paul E. Jones | 7 Jul 2012 07:36
Favicon

Re: The "acct" URI scheme

Melvin,

 

I personally think “acct” is a better choice since many URIs relate to users, including “mailto:” and “xmpp:”.  The “acct:” URI scheme also refers to a user, but more specifically to a user’s account.

 

I have seen some typos for “acct”, as well, but that is a standard abbreviation for account.  Normal users will not have to worry with this, anyway.  In any case, people will get used to it like they do sftp, etc.

 

Paul

 

From: Melvin Carvalho [mailto:melvincarvalho <at> gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 4:29 AM
To: Paul E. Jones
Cc: uri-review <at> ietf.org; jsmarr <at> google.com; Mike Jones; Murray S. Kucherawy; Gonzalo Salgueiro
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] The "acct" URI scheme

 

 

On 6 July 2012 05:22, Paul E. Jones <paulej <at> packetizer.com> wrote:

Folks,

The "acct" URI scheme was just moved out of the WebFinger draft and into its
own draft.  As you give further consideration to this scheme, please
consider it within the context of this draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-acct-uri


Quick question.

I wonder if "user:" is a more natural prefix to register than acct:

A couple of reasons:

1) user is mentioned in rfc6068 a number of times e.g. mailto:user <at> example.org

2) (minor) "acct" is not actually a word and I've seen it typod as accnt a few times
 


Cheers!
Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: uri-review-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:uri-review-bounces <at> ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 1:46 AM
> To: uri-review <at> ietf.org
> Cc: jsmarr <at> google.com; 'Mike Jones'; 'Murray S. Kucherawy'; 'Gonzalo
> Salgueiro'
> Subject: [Uri-review] The "acct" URI scheme
>
> URI Reviewers,
>
> We are progressing work in the IETF on WebFinger.  As a component of that
> work, we have defined the “acct” URI scheme that we would like to
> register. The “acct” URI scheme was first proposed several years ago in
> the Internet community and already adopted in some implementations
> (including Google+), etc.  The specification attempts to formalize and
> finalize the WebFinger specification, including the “acct” URI scheme.
>
> The URI scheme registration template  can be found in Section 12.1 of this
> draft:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-06.txt
>
> We kindly request that you review the proposed URI scheme.
>
> We look forward to your feedback.
>
> Thanks!
> Paul
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
Uri-review <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

 

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
Uri-review <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane