W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2005

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

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:19:07 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050203171528.00bc8370@127.0.0.1>
To: "Weibel,Stu" <weibel@oclc.org>, <uri@w3.org>

At 09:48 03/02/05 -0500, Weibel,Stu wrote:
>"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.

Er, it's quite simple:  organizations SHOULD NOT (sic) deploy business or 
other critical systems that depend on provisional registrations.  That is 
intended.  Isn't that clear?

For email header fields, and by my understanding of the URI scheme 
proposal, the permanent registry does guarantee uniqueness.

#g
--

At 09:48 03/02/05 -0500, Weibel,Stu wrote:
>"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

------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 08:52:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC