RE: URI scheme uniqueness

At 2:04 PM -0700 8/4/03, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>I don't object to this being an issue, and I'm happy to see 
>suggestions for new wording.  However, I think we're missing 
>something here.  You've already pointed out that using an 
>IETF-registered schema doesn't guarantee uniqueness which is true, 
>but the wording below suggests that you can't have uniqueness 
>without having IETF registration. Rather, IETF registration and 
>uniqueness are completely independent qualities.

I agree that they are independent, but we shouldn't lose sight of the idea that
registration tells you whether a scheme will or will not give you 
uniqueness.  The
double issues for non-registered schemes is that you can get overlap (the same
human-friendly scheme names occur to lots of people) and those using
the scheme may have different ideas about the syntax as things evolve.
Both can really damage interoperability.  I encourage folks to 
register schemes,
and we are now working again on the procedures for non-IETF trees, which
would allow people to do a lightweight registration.

				regards,
					Ted Hardie