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

Michael's argument reinforces a previous proposal of mine to add an
additional category (vernacular).  In this way poorly documented or
inadvertant duplicates may be recognized and kept distinct from the
provisional or permanent registrations. 

A second means of achieving this is to identify existing known
duplicates and assure that no future duplicates be registered or
acknowledged as legitimate, and this is the objective of my proposed
wording changes to the existing draft:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2005Feb/0009.html.  While
wild-type schemes might still emerge, their significance and legitimacy
(and hence impact) are unlikely to be widespread.

Either of these approcaches is preferable to that reflected in the
existing draft, which makes no distinction in a registry between poorly
planned or malicious duplications and legitimate attempts to enrich the
functionality of the URI space.

Larry Masinter raises a legitimate concern about land-grab speculation
of URI scheme names.  This concern deserves attention, but must be
divorced from the functional requirement of unique scheme tokens in the
URI space.

stu


-----Original Message-----
From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Mealling
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 2:40 AM
To: uri@w3.org
Subject: Re: Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in
2717/8-bis






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 18:05:14 UTC