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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:54:21 -0600
To: "Weibel,Stu" <weibel@oclc.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-Id: <1108407261.4991.366.camel@localhost>

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 13:47 -0500, Weibel,Stu wrote:
> They clearly are related, but they are different requirements and
> distinct mechanisms for coping with them can be elaborated.

Maybe I'm just not very creative, but I don't see how.

An example of how to address the land-grab problem without
allowing duplicates would make your point much easier
for me to see.

> As currently written, 2717/18 needlessly sacrifices one requirement to
> guard against danger to the other.
> 
> stu 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 1:33 PM
> To: Weibel,Stu
> Cc: uri@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in
> 2717/8-bis
> 
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 13:04 -0500, Weibel,Stu wrote:
> [...]
> > 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.
> 
> ???
> 
> They're intimately connected. I don't think it's possible nor advisable,
> let alone mandatory, to separate them.
> 
> The land-grab phenomenon results from scarcity.
> Uniqueness creates the scarcity.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 18:54:22 UTC

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