Re: URI scheme uniqueness

>
>
>>[...]
>><Elias Sinderson> Perhaps something along the lines of the following would be acceptable?
>>
>>"...are free to use any URI scheme so long as it meets the stated uniqueness
>>requirements. One way to accomplish this is to use IETF-registered URI schemes."
>>    
>>
><Julian Reschke> That's plain and simply wrong. The only way is to use an URI scheme that
>*both* is IETF-registered and meets the uniqueness criterium.
>
<Elias Sinderson> Goodness, you are correct, mea culpa - I see your 
point now.

>><Elias Sinderson> This language seems specific enough to be unambiguous while flexible enough to allow for other mechanisms to ensure uniqueness. The drawback of not [...]
>>    
>>
><Julian Reschke> See, this kind of proves that the spec needs to be enhanced. You and others seem to read it as a license to come up with "private" URI schemes, which is plainly wrong and breaks the uniqueness requirements. Therefore the text
>should be clarified.
>
<Elias Sinderson> Yes, I agree, the current text allows for a looser 
interpretation than is desired - consider me in favor of modifying the 
current wording.


Cheers,
Elias