- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:08:20 +0900
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'Weibel, Stu'" <weibel@oclc.org>, uri@w3.org
Hello Larry, others, The registration rules as such may be fine. But what I thought was almost totally missing in the draft, and I think is very important to make clear (not to people like us who I guess all understand that, but to third-party readers of the document not necessarily thinking globally enough), and to be repeated wherever appropriate: **** Duplicates are inherently a very bad idea. **** Also, in my understanding, the provisional process should actually avoid future duplicates, rather than increase them, because: 1) land-grabbers know that just registering something won't work, so hopefully they won't show up at all; 2) actual scheme inventers will do a provisional registration because it's easy; and 3) other scheme inventers will avoid duplicates because they'll check the registry before deciding on a scheme name. Regards, Martin. At 06:32 05/01/12, Larry Masinter wrote: > >We are not "allowing" duplication. We're just acknowledging >that it might happen and if it does happen, we're better off >telling people about the duplicates. > >If two independent groups inadvertently define "name:" >as a URI scheme, but define it differently, should we only >let the first one into the registry? First come first served? >Even if the second one to attempt registration was first >to actually use the scheme name? > >The proposed registration rules are based on the fact that >it is possible to invent and deploy a URI scheme without >IANA and IESG approval. > > >Larry >-- >http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 09:09:09 UTC