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

Re: URI scheme uniqueness

From: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 10:47:27 -0700
Message-ID: <3F2E9C2F.1030307@cse.ucsc.edu>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>
>
>>[...]
>><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
Received on Monday, 4 August 2003 13:47:36 GMT

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