- From: Weibel,Stu <weibel@oclc.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:51:13 -0500
- To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>, <uri@w3.org>
> 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? No, this is not clear. It is not clear because there are no agreed functional requirements for this specification, and every attempt to elicit them has thus far been ignored. One of the requirements that SHOULD be articulated is to provide the means for reasonable innovation as regards the introduction of new URI schemes. By that, I mean that the process should protect permanent registrations, while affording the means to register unique provisional scheme tokens which then may attract usage (and become likely candidates for permanent registration), may be used in particular communities without broad web interest (which is fine, and which requires no further attention from anyone), or which fall dormant (and perhaps subject to token recycling). By making it impossible to carry forward with confidence an innovative scheme short of permanent registration, while leaving the barriers to such registration very high, you make both the cost and risk of innovation needlessly high. There has yet to be a single unanswered objection to the proposed requirement that ALL newly registered provisional tokens be unique. stu
Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 18:02:33 UTC