RE: Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in 2717/8-bis

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.

Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 09:09:09 UTC