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