McDonald, Ira wrote: > Hi Ben, > > With respect to "scarce": > > Although I have mixed feelings about the logic, the brand > new RFC 4395 "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for > New URI Schemes" argues that the bar should be very high > for a new 'Permanent' URI scheme, because so many browsers > and other bits of client software will have to updated for > the URI scheme to become widely deployed and used.
I guess that DIX is an example of a proposal that drives a truck through that argument. Clearly all that s/w has to be changed _no matter how_ you represent DIX. It seems likely to me that this is generally true, too, but I'm not planning to make a stand against 4395 on that basis :-) Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.links.org/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff _______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
