Le 15 oct. 2004, à 15:27, Norman Walsh a écrit : > The question of who "owns" a domain name strikes me as a legal issue > more > than an architectural one. The webarch document extolls the virtues of > URI persistence and explains the notion of ownership, and the rights > and > responsibilities that are associated with it, in a way that I think is > satisfactory. > > Are there any specific changes you would like to suggest to the text? There was a long thread about that topic on the list. I still don't agree with the notion of ownership. Or if I would like to find an idea of consensus on this issue, it would be good to explain and define precisely what the TAG means by "ownership" [[[ It is useful for a URI scheme to establish a unique relationship between a social entity and a URI; this is the case for the "http", "mailto", "ftp", and "urn" schemes, for example. This relationship is called URI ownership. ]]]- http://w3c.test.site/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040816/#def-uri-ownership And [[[ URI ownership The relationship between assigning agent and URI that is defined by a URI scheme. ]]] I think that would be worthwhile to define ownership precisely, clearly BEFORE to discuss any kind of agreement on this issue. -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 22:41:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:06 GMT