Template talk:URI schemes

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

Internet

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles

removal of chrome

Why Mabdul has deleted “chrome” URI scheme? I do not see any reason for such actions... Errandir (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed it, because it is a redlink and has no article. Otherwise this template becomes really huge since every application implements such a URI. mabdul 19:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links

The links on this template don't make a lot of sense if they only link to articles that don't discuss the URI scheming itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.213.153 (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One such example is the javascript link. 130.243.94.123 (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were almost all completely irrelevant. I've cleaned it up. — Scott • talk 18:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tel URI scheme for telephone?

It seems that the tel scheme is missing. See RFC 5341. – Kaihsu (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As hinted in the Links section above in this Talk page, all schemes that had no information written anywhere in Wikipedia about the URI itself (syntax, usage etc) were removed in 2015, including tel. I personally would like them to be there. There should somewhere on Wikipedia be a list of URI schemes.--BIL (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that at the end of Uniform Resource Identifier there is a link to an official list with 248 entries. Most of the schemes listed as unofficial in our template are listed in this list. What's our definition of an unofficial scheme?--BIL (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Official / unofficial should be whether it's registered with IANA, I assume that's the list you're talking about. You could also make the distinction between what IANA lists as provisional and what it lists as permanent. Provisional protocols are not really less official, it's just that they may be removed later. --Entlantian (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, someone added tel back into the official list in this template but didn't link it. Linking it goes to a disambiguation page, which mentions it but just links to Uniform Resource Identifier. 192.31.106.35 (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WAIS scheme?

WAIS is a historical scheme and not in use any more. We still list it in the "official" section; however, this isn't very useful to most readers. I'm going to just remove it.

You can view the complete, current list of schemes straight from the source here: [1]

A "historical" section of the template might make sense, and this resource also helps us separate "official" from "unofficial" (permanent vs provisional) in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornpipe2 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]