This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 14 November 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is the talk page of a redirect that has been merged and now targets the page: • Uniform Resource Identifier Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Uniform Resource Identifier Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The contents of the URI scheme page were merged into Uniform resource identifier on 25 August 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
The double slash after the colon following the URI scheme name requires some explanation IMHO. Why is it used sometimes (e. g. in http) but not always (e. g. in mailto or news)? Why do Windows "file:" URIs for UNC paths have to use four slashes, like in "file:////myserver/myshare/myfile.htm"; couldn't they live with the UNC's two slashes as well? Also, the scheme list could need some examples. - wr 14-dec-2005
<scheme>://
(e.g. http://
) could be assumed to be using that syntax, while one that didn't was probably non-hierarchical (e.g. mailto:
). Excerpt from RFC 2396:The URI syntax does not require that the scheme-specific-part have any general structure or set of semantics which is common among all URI. However, a subset of URI do share a common syntax for representing hierarchical relationships within the namespace. This "generic URI" syntax consists of a sequence of four main components: <scheme>://<authority><path>?<query> each of which, except <scheme>, may be absent from a particular URI. For example, some URI schemes do not allow an <authority> component, and others do not use a <query> component.
file://
, Isaac's given most of the answer already: a UNIX path becomes file:///path/file
from file://
+ /path/file
- that is, the file:
scheme with the marker that it's generic/hierarchical (//
), and then the path used on the local system. Similarly, a Windows UNC example like file:////myserver/myshare/myfile.htm
is simply file://
+ //myserver/myshare/myfile.htm
. - IMSoP 13:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)//example.com/
clearly refers to an authority, while /example.html/
clearly is a path. -Cowlinator —Preceding comment was added at 02:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)I could add it meself, but I'm lazy...Takua108 02:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
"To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup".
Clean the Notes column is enough??
I think we nedd information, other articles like URI does not offer information about schemas. Other sugestion is to split into a lot of schema articles. -- krauss 31/jul/2006.
The List of URI schemes table is getting long and complex. Is there a rule that prevents us from splitting it into two sections, for "Official IANA-registered schemes" and "Unofficial but common schemes"?
This would have the benefit of having both tables appearing in the table of contents for easy access, as well as make it easier to edit the required table. Thoughts? -- Techtoucian 04:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
What about info: (RFC 4452)
I have some suggestions about Official IANA-registered schemes, but I would like to discuss them because they may imply substantial modifications:
dns://dnsauthority/dnsname?dnsquery
).http:
, ftp:
, etc).Rjgodoy 01:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems a bit odd to include uuid:<specificpart>
as part of the Official IANA-registered schemes on any grounds whatsoever. Certainly it is absent from Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes which is the (appropriately) cited authority.
--Ramorrismorris (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Authors are encurrage to use Backus–Naur formatting when describing the URI format. A generic example would be:
<example_uri> ::= "example://" <absolute_uri>
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.179.68 (talk)
Would it be appropriate to add these unofficial URLs: icyx://, rtpx://, htpx://, uvxx://
or aren't they yet common enough? They are used by Orban/Coding Technologies AAC/aacPlus plugin for any DirectShow compliant media player, such as Windows Media Player.
24.80.185.126 (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't Picasa use picasa:
as a URI scheme? It isn't listed in the "unofficial" table, or in the template at the bottom of the article. B7T (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
1. reg syntax : reg:[regpath]
ex : reg:HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel OR reg:HKCU\Control Panel
Logiphile (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Outlook seems to embed images as res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001 - but that scheme isn't listed on this page? 80.177.58.134 (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The article misses to describe Percent-encoding and the allowed character set. What characters is an URI allowed to be build of at which parts? -- 195.37.139.208 (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest splitting this article into two new articles: 1) Explaining URI scheme in general 2) List of URI schemes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.107.251 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
... does everything on Wiki keep sliding into one pot? I want to find information on the Callto function but I am redirected here!!! WHY?!?!?!? Sure it's a higher leved classification in a certain taxonomy but SO WHAT?!?!? Hey, I've got an idea. Let's put everything to do with computers under the title Computers. That would simplify things wouldn't it? Come to think of it a computer is simply ane elctronic machine so we could just put it all under the heading Electonic Machines. Hey, this is great, because, electronic machnes are just a subset of ... yes, you've got it, this process makes the information not more useful but less usefull, in fact it steadily decays until it is almost completely useless. This is a cse in point. Common guys, the idea of a taxonomy is to make information more searchable not less. LookingGlass (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This article refers to RFC 3969[1], but that RFC doesn't seem relevant. Perhaps RFC 3986[2] was intended? 149.65.130.57 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
In the row about the 'im' scheme, the following RFCs are mentioned: RFC 3860, RFC 4622, and RFC 5122. The latter two seem XMPP-related, and unrelated to the 'im' scheme. These two RFCs should be left out.
The first RFC defers to RFC 2822's "mailbox" specification, which always contains an "addr-spec", which always contains an @-sign and a "domain". Therefore the example should be written im:<username>@<host> instead of im:<username>[@<host>].
Marnix.klooster (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears Google "invented" a new scheme to be used on Android devices addressing items in its application market: market: Example: market://search?q=pname:net.dinglisch.android.taskerm Somebody who knows more could add it to the article. --Xerces8 (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The article states that sms: 'should be used as a subset to the tel: schema'. This suggests that any telephone would have SMS capabilities, which is untrue. Is the comment therefore misleading/incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.129.220.105 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The article mentions that chrome: is used in mozilla based browsers for XUL components, and shouldn't be confused with Google Chrome. Google Chrome also seems to use this scheme, but for a purpose more similar to about: in other browsers; eg. chrome://settings/cookiesView in Google Chrome brings up a list of your cookies. TheCycoONE (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The inofficial schemes rdp: and vnc: seem to be used often, shouldn't they be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.35.167 (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Galzigler (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The interpretation of the mailto example seems to be incorrect.
mailto:username@example.com?subject=Topic
It states that username is the userinfo and example.com is the hostname, i.e. part of the authority rather than the path. But in fact, RFC 3986 states that
the URI <mailto:fred@example.com> has a path of "fred@example.com", whereas the URI <foo://info.example.com?fred> has an empty path.
This is verifiable by passing that mailto URI through an RFC 3986 compliant parser. Unless there is disagreement, I will correct this. -- CYD (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I found a few more unofficial URIs, but I don't know what they are doing:
(The URIs mentioned on Unofficial URIs were added to the article.)
The format is: "android.resource://[package]/[res id]" [package] is your package name [res id] is value of the resource ID, e.g. R.drawable.sample_1 to stitch it together, use Uri path = Uri.parse("android.resource://your.package.name/" + R.drawable.sample_1);
Galzigler (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
foo://username:password@example.com:8042/over/there/index.dtb?type=animal&name=narwhal#nose \_/ \_______________/ \_________/ \__/ \___/ \_/ \______________________/ \__/ | | | | | | | | | userinfo hostname port | | query fragment | \________________________________/\_____________|____|/ \__/ \__/ | | | | | | | scheme authority path | | interpretable as keys name \_______________________________________________|____|/ \____/ \_____/ | | | | | | | hierarchical part | | interpretable as values | | | | path interpretable as filename | | ___________|____________ | / \ / \ | urn:example:animal:ferret:nose interpretable as extension scheme name userinfo hostname query _|__ ___|__ ____|____ _____|_____ / \ / \ / \ / \ mailto:username@example.com?subject=Topic
I think it would be better to recreate it as an SVG diagram. I don't know SVG, so I can't make it myself. Galzigler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems like a sensible idea, Galzigler! Today, I looked into the source mentioned for this diagram, namely Chapter 3 of [RFC 3986], in order to establish just what exactly an explanatory diagram such as this should contain. There, in section 3.2.1. User Information, we find these statements:
The userinfo subcomponent may consist of a user name and, optionally, scheme-specific information about how to gain authorization to access the resource. ... Use of the format "user:password" in the userinfo field is deprecated.
So to anybody who plans to replace or update this diagram, please remove the ":password" after "username". Similarly, and at the same time, we need to lose the "password" appearing twice more in the article.
Still, it beats me what other useful "information about how to gain authorization to access the resource" one would want to place in cleartext in a URI! Basic security considerations imply that we should pass no access info unless it's absolutely necessary, and even then, we should first encrypt it. yoyo (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The "Generic syntax" section states that if the hierarchical path doesn't begin with ("//") it contains only a path. It goes on saying that if the path is present, it must begin with a forward slash ("/"). It also states that the path is a sequence of segments separated by a forward slash.
The sub section "Examples" uses URI "urn:example:animal:ferret:nose" as an example, pointing out that the substring "example:animal:ferret:nose" is the path component of the URI.
Now, raise your hands those of you who can see the "//" prefix and the required "/" delimiter in that path, stated as required characters a few inches up in the article. The article states one thing only to go against itself later on. I don't feel qualified to correct this, but at least I can point out the inconsistency.
84.210.19.1 (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The Generic syntax section repeatedly mentions a (sometimes double) "forward slash". I believe that this expression is an oxymoron, and that the correct name (in both ASCII and UTF-8 standards, among others) for the "/" character is simply "slash". I also understand that many people use the expression "forward slash" to make it clear to their audience that they don't mean the character "\", a "backslash". I'd like to promote the cause of accuracy, as it can contribute to clarity, but not at the expense of comprehension.
My question is this: Should we, in the interests of being technically (even pedantically) correct, replace all occurrences of "forward slash" by "slash", or would that make the article harder to understand?
yoyo (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just removed the gigantic table listing IANA-registered schemes and the smaller one of unofficial schemes. They were atrocious to look at, ruined the page's layout, and did little but awkwardly duplicate content on IANA's website in an inconsistent manner that's guaranteed to go out of date. In other words, they were cruft. This article was proposed for a merger with Uniform resource identifier, and for good reason, but it's never going to happen if that ghastly mess remains. If anyone is desperate to retain them, move them to List of URI schemes, don't put them back here. — Scott • talk 22:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)