RE: Proposed language change for Hansen 2717/2718

Larry, do I correctly understand your response to be:

   Rather than suffer the possibility of someone trying to reserve 
   a so-called 'good name', we will render it impossible for anyone 
   to register a reliably unique name at all, short of a 'permanent' 
   registration.

I am, like everyone, concerned about the 2-year-review problem, but that
is independent of the unique token problem.

Preventing the assurance of unique tokens for provisional registrations
places every URI scheme registration at unnecessary risk.  You are
fighting this because of unsupported suppositions about future
registrations of scheme names.  Address the problem directly, not by
weakening the system so as to perpetuate the promulgation of duplicate
URI scheme names.

stu


-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Masinter [mailto:LMM@acm.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:41 PM
To: Weibel,Stu
Cc: uri@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposed language change for Hansen 2717/2718

I think the main concern with your counter-proposal is that it might
encourage people to "stake out" the "good names"
in the registry, because uniqueness is offered with no review.

Instead, we're trying to make permanent registration easy enough that
the failure you're concerned about ("2 years for review") doesn't
happen.

> My primary concern with the Hansen 2717/18 draft as written is the 
> inability to assure registration of a unique scheme token in the URI 
> namespace at the beginning of the innovation cycle, that is, at the 
> time a scheme is registered as a provisional scheme.

It should be possible to register a unique scheme name at the beginning
of the "innovation cycle" by filling out a form, and a short review.
Unless there are egregious problems, the registration would happen
whether or not the reviewers actually liked the content of the
registration.

Larry

Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2005 20:41:33 UTC