- From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:14:21 -0000
- To: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:12:38 -0500, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote: > Charles Lindsey scripsit: > >> 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. > > I certainly hope not. The gopher scheme may be little used today, but > that doesn't mean that some future scheme should be so called. There > is a sufficiency of [a-z]+ strings. Indeed, gopher was a scheme that was in regular use at one time, and may still be used in a few places. But what does one do in the case of a 'foobar' scheme that was Never used anywhere and was only ever registered for 'land grabbing' purposes? Now comes the time when you want to institute a genuine 'foobar' scheme, and let us suppose there are excellent reasons why 'foobar' is the proper name for it. So you need either to be able to deregister the old (bogus) foobar, or else to demote it to some status which does not preclude the new one going ahead. IOW, there needs to be some mechanism for rectifying past "mistakes". The new draft does not address this issue. It should. -- 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 Wednesday, 23 February 2005 17:12:54 UTC