- From: Weibel,Stu <weibel@oclc.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:41:46 -0500
- To: <uri@w3.org>
If my understanding of the proposed sytem is incomplete, I apologize. I am drawing conclusions from only a reading of the RFC, not from any knowledge of existing or proposed registries. That said, I don't see how requiring uniqueness of a provisionally registered token breaks anything. What am I missing? stu -----Original Message----- From: Larry Masinter [mailto:LMM@acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:21 PM To: Weibel,Stu; uri@w3.org Subject: RE: Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in 2717/8-bis > To permit multiple URI Scheme registrations for any given token is to > severely impair the usefulness of provisional registration. It > affords no protection against either careless or malicious > registrations that would compromise a given provisional registration. I disagree about "no protection" -- it adds some protection against inadvertent duplication (because it allows publication of a URI scheme usage), and even against malicious registration (because registration includes sufficient information for the community to react.) In any case, if you don't like the proposed process, what would you propose in its place? This seems to me like the best we can do, given all the requirements. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2005 18:42:23 UTC