W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2005

RE: Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in 2717/8-bis

From: Weibel,Stu <weibel@oclc.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:24:59 -0500
Message-ID: <8CC50D49B6828C4FBAB7DA1FCAB0526A2713E7@OAEXCH1SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: <uri@w3.org>

It would be helpful if those who hold the view expressed here could
indicate explain why assuring uniqueness is detrimental.

By exposing requirements explicitly, I think we have a better chance of
either coming to agreement or at least understanding clearly why we
don't, and may, as a byproduct, end up with a set of commonly understood
explicit requirements that can be used for policy design.

stu

-----Original Message-----
From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Baker
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 11:34 AM
To: uri@w3.org
Subject: Re: Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in
2717/8-bis


On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 08:47:10AM -0500, Weibel,Stu wrote:
> Larry raised the point that:
> 
> > The proposed registration rules are based on the fact that it is 
> > possible to invent and deploy a URI scheme without IANA and IESG 
> > approval.
> 
> This may be the case, but shouldn't we be providing incentives to 
> reduce both the likelihood and impact of this happening?

Yes.  And I believe Dan's suggestion is a good way to do this, as it
decouples policy enforcement from registration, allowing the registry to
reflect reality.

>  Assuring that ALL
> IANA-registered URI scheme tokens are unique is a step in this 
> direction.

I respectfully suggest that it would be a step in the opposite
direction.

Just my 2c.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2005 18:25:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:35 GMT