> 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).

Some individuals (claiming to have IETF hats on) felt that way, but
"the IETF says it belongs..." isn't a meaningful statement as the IETF
doesn't really have a mechanism to express such a position. It is true
that the status of 'info' as a URI scheme is not known, but it is not
at all clear that it has been rejected.

As to the "scheme that was under heavy discussion..."  there was some
discussion about info, but the proposal that really brought people to
blows and nasty accusations, etc.  was DOI as a URI scheme (vs.
URN) -- and the DOI folks have now registered it as an INFO subspace.
(Note that the Netref protocol has also gone with 'info' to express
identifiers. Look at http://info-uri.info/registry/ for a complete
list. And Rob, yes, I'll add a link, good suggestion.)

'info' might not ever become an official IETF URI scheme, and that
should not cause us discomfort. It will be a defaco, well-recognized
identifier scheme (whether you want to call it a URI scheme will be a
philosophical argument).

The reasons that 'info' cannot be a URN NID are well-documented.  The
IETF has come a long way over the past 10 or so years but there's
still a disconnect with the information community -- IETF is still
essentially a bunch of computer scientists who don't understand our
needs.

--Ray