> http is a uri > http is a label > http is a domain name > http is a uri scheme name 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. ' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things. ' http is not a URI as it does not meet the syntax defined in RFC 2396. Is http a label? It depends on the context, do you mean domain label? If so, can you replace the http label with another label, such as localhost, and have the same semantics? Is http a domain name? It depends on the context in which it is being evaluated. Is foo a domain name? http is a URI scheme name I wasn't going to post here, but apparently there are some long-time IETFers that don't know some things. > Its all the same characters in the same position of the string. And know I think we are getting to the crux of the point that Tim is trying to make. One possible reason is to bolster his legal action, if he is still pursuing it. And this claim is wrong. http://http.example.com/cgi-bin/headers?http The first use is a scheme, the second is a label within a fully-qualified domain name, and I'm not sure what the third use would be called. Tim has been trying for years to get his "drop" concept registered as a a URI scheme even though it doesn't use ":" as the separator. See the thread at [1] for some recent activity. He tried this at the IETF in 2020, which he appealed to the IESG [2][3] and then the IAB [4]. I am pretty sure that there was legal action started, but I don't recall where I heard that and do not have a link. He has an individual draft [5]. I was told he asked the ISE to publish it, but again I don't recall where I heard that and do not have a link. Tim believes that "drop#foobar" should be defined as a standard URI, and refuses to accept that it has to be "drop:foobar" /r$ [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2022Jul/0001.html [2] https://www6.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/mcsweeney-2020-07-08.txt [3] https://www6.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/response-to-mcsweeney-2020-07-08.pdf [4] https://www.iab.org/appeals/2020-2/iab-response-to-appeal-from-timothy-mcsweeney/ [5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcsweeney-drop-scheme/
