If you check the archives, you'll find that I was against info URI's in
general - it seems to be reinventing URN's (a feeling felt by others in
W3C/IETF I believe). The only place in SRW where I felt comfortable that
Info URI's are appropriate are for diagnostic URIs - but I suspect that
there is already a suitable URN scheme other than Info URIs. However, I
bowed (but not particularly quietly ;-) ) to the general consensus.

I had the following discussion offline recently which did worry me a
little more:

>>> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
>>>
>>> BTW, looking at
>>> 
>>> http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/infoURI.html
>>> 
>>> I can't help noticing that the spec invents a new URI scheme 
>>> that doesn't have a IETF registration. I think this is a bad 
>>> idea (both coming up with it in the first place, and not 
>>> registering it with the IETF).
>>
>>
>> From: Matthew J. Dovey [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
>> 
>> We (i.e. the SRW spec) haven't invented a new URI scheme - NISO did
as
>> part of its OpenURL work. See
>> http://www.niso.org/news/releases/pr-NISO_URL.html. It has 
>> gone through
>> (or is going through
>>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandesompel-info-uri-01.txt)
>> the IETF process.
>
>
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
>
> Oh, I see.
>
> I didn't realize that's the same scheme that was under heavy
discussion on
> the W3C lists lately (as far as I understand the outcome, it won't be
> registered because the IETF says it belongs into the urn: tree).


Matthew