Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote at 2006-01-26T10:37:02+0900:
> On 1/26/06, Neil Van Dyke <xxxxxx@neilvandyke.org> wrote:
> > [...] I imagine that W3C- and IETF-types would have
> > comments wrt the authority component of the URI if the "scheme"
> > URI-scheme were proposed.  I suspect some would question whether or not
> > a new URI-scheme is needed, which might beg other questions.
>
> The recommended approach would probably be to use a URN (rfc2141):

That's what I would've said, til I heard an offhand remark from one
person a while ago, which made me wonder whether URNs had fallen into
disfavour.  I've not been in the loop on that lately.  I definitely
think that some W3C and IETF people should be consulted about the use of
URIs in the Scheme module system, if they've not been already.

--
                                             http://www.neilvandyke.org/