W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2003

RE: rfc2518-bis-04 issues (part 2)

From: Jason Crawford <nn683849@smallcue.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:58:06 -0400
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF4343D6B8.166DA144-ON85256D73.006CC3C5@us.ibm.com>
> > > Replace
> > >
> > > "However resources are free to return any URI scheme so long as it 
meets
> > > the uniqueness requirements."
> > >
> > > by
> > >
> > > "However servers are free to use any IETF-registered URI scheme so 
long
> > > as it meets the uniqueness requirements."
> > >
> > > (If it's not IETF-registered, I don't see how it can possibly meet 
the
> > > uniqueness criterium).
> >
> > I'd vote to leave the text as it is.
> 
> Again, please help me understand...:
> 
> 1) Are you suggesting that to for a scheme to be IETF-registered is not 
a
> requirement? In which case I'll argue that by definition there can't be 
any
> uniquess guarantee otherwise.
> 2) Are you suggesting that this is obvious? I which case I'll have to 
point
> out that there are well-known server implementations doing just that, so
> obviously the spec  hasn't been clear enough about that.

I think there are a lot of things a developer might do to that can result 
in
collisions, and that we don't need to outline them.
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2003 15:58:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:04 GMT