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

draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-03.txt

From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:24:57 -0000
To: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <opsmlw7vfs6hl8nm@clerew.man.ac.uk>

I have now read through this, and it seems to cover most of the points  
that have been raised. So just a few minor items:

1. There seems to be no mechanism for removing an entry from the Registry.

Or is it the intention that historic entries should be 'invisible'. I.e.  
that the existence of a historic foobar scheme does not prevent the  
simultaneous registration (even permanent) of a (possibly very different)  
foobar scheme.

If so, then it needs to be made clear, but if not then how do we cope with  
the situation of two registered schemes with the same name (which can  
happen with IESG approval of for reasons of history) and it is desired to  
make one of them permanent (it being agreed by all that the other one is  
totally defunct)?

2. I think I prefer 'historic' to 'historical', just to perpetuate the  
joke (you could even repeat the historic disclaimer.

3. The proposed Template seems much longer than the Templates for other  
IANA registries. Surely you don't expect the registry to include, for each  
scheme, its complete syntax, semantics, interoperability considerations,  
etc., etc., etc. Yes, those things must exist (in some document, e.g. on  
the standards track) and be looked at during the review, but all one would  
expect in the Registry itself is a pointer to the document. The structure  
of other Registries seems to define the 'Template' essentially in the form  
of a Table of information ready to paste into the Registry by IANA. I get  
the impression that IANA don't want to get involved with detailed editing.

4. Where a provisional registration is coupled to some internet draft,  
there appears to be an intention to 'update' the registry when the draft  
expires. But, if the internet draft just dies without proceeding to an  
RFC, is it intended that the 'update' would be to move it to historic, or  
simply to delete it? N.B., I doubt that IANA will be monitoring  
internet-drafts so as to automate this 'update', so it will be more likely  
that some 3rd party who happens to notice that the draft no longer exists  
will have to report the situation to IANA before they will actually take  
action.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 17:13:10 UTC

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