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

RE: Addressing the name speculation problem

From: Weibel,Stu <weibel@oclc.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:33:53 -0500
Message-ID: <8CC50D49B6828C4FBAB7DA1FCAB0526A27148D@OAEXCH1SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>

And provisional registrations do enjoy the protection of unique tokens.
None of the experience we have with the path from one state to another
would encourage us to believe that it will be simple or easy, and indeed
one may well argue that it SHOULD NOT be easy to attain permanently
registered URI schemes.

That leaves innovators who want to start that path, or simply want to
develop community-bounded 
schemes entirely unprotected from duplication.

Why?

Will someone please address this simple question?


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 3:07 PM
To: Weibel,Stu
Cc: uri@w3.org
Subject: RE: Addressing the name speculation problem

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:48 -0500, Weibel,Stu wrote:
[...]
> Dan, you say you don't understand why the current proposal is not 
> workable... I don't understand why anyone on this list thinks that 
> leaving the uniqueness of URI tokens as indeterminate is an acceptable

> position.

The current draft doesn't leave uniqueness of URI tokens as
indeterminate, as I understand it. Permanent registrations are unique.


> http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guid
> elines/
> January 3, 2005

--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

-
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2005 20:34:32 UTC

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