- From: Weibel,Stu <weibel@oclc.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:47:10 -0500
- To: <uri@w3.org>
Last week, I raised a question concerning the uniqueness of scheme tokens for provisionally-registered schemes in Hansen 2717/18-bis. It is a fundamental question concerning the functionality of the proposed procedure. The stated intent of the document -- to NOT assure uniqueness for IANA-registered tokens -- represents, in my estimation, a severe deficiency which can easily be rectified. Larry Masinter's response to my question was, in part, > 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. What I propose is, very simply, that IANA-registered tokens be unique. And yes, on a first come, first-served basis. To do otherwise is to strip the U from URI under the imprimatur of IANA. Surely this cannot be judged a good thing for Internet architecture? Larry raised the point that: > 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. This may be the case, but shouldn't we be providing incentives to reduce both the likelihood and impact of this happening? Assuring that ALL IANA-registered URI scheme tokens are unique is a step in this direction. stu Stuart Weibel Senior Research Scientist OCLC Research http://public.xdi.org/=Stuart.L.Weibel +1.614.764.6081
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 13:47:48 UTC