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

Re: Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in 2717/8-bis

From: Michael Mealling <michael@refactored-networks.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:40:27 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20050213164022.0731d878@localhost>
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

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