- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 20:50:41 -0400
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
- cc: "Tim Kindberg" <timothy@hpl.hp.com>, uri@w3.org
> defined for a particular URI scheme. What if I invented a URI scheme
> that uses DNS and dates, but that enforces a "immediately before"
> policy? Then you get conflicts. I serously think that if you don't own
> a domain name for a certina period of time, then you must not use it.
As long as your URI scheme and ours do not have the same name, there
is no conflict. If they do have the same name, we have bigger
problems that differing semantics on unassigned periods!
The reason for the "unassigned period" rule is simple: people who get
a never-before-used domain, are going to want to use the date
qualifier of "1", not "1-4-27". Some of them are going to want it a
lot, and I'll bet you some of them will decide to use "1" no matter
what we say, since they are pretty darn sure there's really nothing
wrong with it. Prohibiting a useful and harmless behavior is bad
design. What we can and should do is explain the potential danger and
help people avoid it.
-- sandro
Received on Friday, 27 April 2001 20:52:49 UTC