Replacing the "fsck.com-rt" URL scheme

Just in case anyone is interested, I have attached patches against 3.6.0
for :

$rtroot/lib/RT/URI.pm
$rtrootlib/RT/Record.pm
$rtroot/lib/RT/Ticket_Overlay.pm

and also attached a new file

$rtroot/lib/RT/URI/rt.pm

Together, these make the default URI scheme “rt://” instead of
"fsck.com-rt://". Nothing should break with the existing “fsck.com” URIs
as

$rtroot/lib/RT/URI/fsck.com-rt.pm

still exists and the database contents are not changed. It should only
make a difference to new links. If you want to convert everything to the
simpler scheme, you could go through the RT “links” DB table and
find/replace everything and then delete

$rtroot/lib/RT/URI/fsck.com-rt.pm

Why did I do this? Because when you start to use the REST interface a
lot, you start to see the URIs and management get a little strange when
they see someone else’s domain-name in their scripts and code. They get
a little nervous about open-source as a result. And it is cleaner, which
appeals to me.

PK

rt.pm (5.8 KB)

Ticket_Overlay.pm-urlscheme.patch (298 Bytes)

URI.pm-urlscheme.patch (367 Bytes)

Record.pm-urlscheme.patch (337 Bytes)

So, this patch sparked a lively internal debate here at Best Practical.
Which prompted me to do a bunch of googling to figure out where I picked
up the idea for “fsck.com-rt”.

RFC 4395 New URI Schemes February 2006

Organizations that desire a private name space for URI scheme names
are encouraged to use a prefix based on their domain name, expressed
in reverse order. For example, a URI scheme name of com-example-info
might be registered by the vendor that owns the example.com domain
name.

While clearly not the reference I was originally using, it does seem to
at least point in the same direction. (And yeah, it’s incompatible with what
we’re actually doing.) I’ll see what I can dig up about actually registering with
IANA, though I expect to get slapped down fairly brutally.

Jesse

I can see why it might have been done originally - that makes perfect
sense, I suppose that I was thinking that since RT isn’t really a
"private" thing any more, it deserves a more public URI scheme,
especially since it’s open source …

PK-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Vincent [mailto:jesse@bestpractical.com]
Sent: 27 June 2006 21:43
To: Philip Kime
Cc: rt-devel@lists.bestpractical.com
Subject: Re: [Rt-devel] Replacing the “fsck.com-rt” URL scheme

So, this patch sparked a lively internal debate here at Best Practical.
Which prompted me to do a bunch of googling to figure out where I picked
up the idea for “fsck.com-rt”.

RFC 4395 New URI Schemes February 2006

Organizations that desire a private name space for URI scheme names
are encouraged to use a prefix based on their domain name, expressed
in reverse order. For example, a URI scheme name of com-example-info
might be registered by the vendor that owns the example.com domain
name.

While clearly not the reference I was originally using, it does seem to
at least point in the same direction. (And yeah, it’s incompatible with
what we’re actually doing.) I’ll see what I can dig up about actually
registering with IANA, though I expect to get slapped down fairly
brutally.

Jesse