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

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

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.



Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 18:02:33 UTC