W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2005

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

From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:42:06 -0000
To: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <opskwiwgwr6hl8nm@clerew.man.ac.uk>

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:44:44 +0200, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:

> I don't believe so. Consider VenderCo who has just released
> WizBangTool that supports wizzy: URIs. Somebody files
> a bug that says "your scheme isn't registered" so they follow
> their nose to the registry, only to find that some long-defunct
> sourceforge project registered wizzy: 5 years ago. With
> unique registration, VendorCo's choices are:
>
>   (a) change their software and register a wizzy2: uri scheme
>   (b) ignore the process and go their merry way

The correct solution to that problem is to say that scheme names MUST be  
unique, but to provide some means whereby defunct provisional  
registrations may be removed from the register. Either by insisting that  
they only remain so long as an identifiable specification with an  
identifiable person to maintain it exists, or by giving some reserve power  
to the IESG to remove it.

Removing the old wizzy should be no problem it if really is defunct. But  
if it turns out that some people somewhere are still using it, then  
VendorCo should be forced to use wizzy2.

-- 
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 Thursday, 20 January 2005 15:30:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:08 UTC