- From: Michael Mealling <michael@refactored-networks.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:40:27 +0900
- To: uri@w3.org
Documenting failures is fine as long as we denote them as such and create some consequence to that failure. Listing them along side valid registrations, however categorized, validates the failuers and cheapens the successes. My suggestion would be to document duplicates in a registry of "Stupid stuff you should never do" along side the duplicate mail headers. -MM -----Original Message----- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:47:30 To:"Weibel,Stu" <weibel@oclc.org>, uri@w3.org Subject: RE: Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in 2717/8-bis At 13:24 20/01/05 -0500, Weibel,Stu wrote: >It would be helpful if those who hold the view expressed here could >indicate explain why assuring uniqueness is detrimental. In the case of email header fields, it was recognized that duplicates *did* occur (rarely) in the wild, and that the primary need was to be able to document what did exist in order that designers could avoid them. Local experiments sometimes escape and become global de-facto standards. By prohibiting provisional registration of duplicates they would be forced out of sight, with no clear way for designers of new fields to avoid duplicates. #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact This was sent from my blackberry so please forgive the terse nature of the response.
Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 00:53:21 UTC