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 15:50:52 -0500
Message-ID: <8CC50D49B6828C4FBAB7DA1FCAB0526A2713ED@OAEXCH1SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: <uri@w3.org>

Names...labels... tokens are, admittedly, very important.  Sometimes
critically so.

But why would one NOT want to say no to requests for token registrations
that break the protocols of others *and* endanger the usefulness of
their own.  That strikes me as far worse.

What am I missing?

stu



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] 
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 3:28 PM
To: Weibel,Stu
Cc: uri@w3.org
Subject: Re: Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in
2717/8-bis

On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:24:59PM -0500, Weibel,Stu wrote:
> It would be helpful if those who hold the view expressed here could 
> indicate explain why assuring uniqueness is detrimental.

My main issue with ensuring uniqueness is that it requires saying "No"
to somebody who simply wants to tell the world about the URI schemes
they minted.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2005 20:51:22 GMT

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