RE: Proposed wording (was: Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in 2717/8-bis)

"SHOULD NOT" simply is not strong enough to allow organizations to
proceed with confidence in deploying business systems that cannot be
protected from ignorance or malice.

This is especially true given that in all this discussion no one has
advanced plausible arguments concerning the supposed duplicates in
existing URI scheme proposals and the consequences thereof.

stu



-----Original Message-----
From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Graham
Klyne
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 6:04 AM
To: Charles Lindsey; uri@w3.org
Subject: Proposed wording (was: Duplication of provisional URI namespace
tokens in 2717/8-bis)


Following an offline exchange, I offer the following wording as a
possible way to express the desire for uniqueness of names while keeping
open the option of documenting duplicates:

[[
New submissions for the provisional registry MUST NOT use a scheme name
that is already present in the permanent registry, and SHOULD NOT use a
name that is already present in the provisional registry.
]]

I believe this approach is consistent with what were aiming to achieve
with the message jheader field registry.

I haven't figured exactly where it might fit in the proposed
registration draft.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact

Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 14:49:32 UTC