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

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:50:52 -0500, Weibel,Stu <> wrote:

> Names...labels... tokens are, admittedly, very important.  Sometimes
> critically so.
> But why would one NOT want to say no to requests for token registrations
> that break the protocols of others *and* endanger the usefulness of
> their own.  That strikes me as far worse.

Hold on a minute!

If there exist two schemes called "file", registered as such, but which  
are broadly compatible (e.g. one is a small experimental enhancement of  
the other, or the extra bells and whistle of each do not clash), then that  
might be OK.

But if there are two registered schemes called 'foobar', with totally  
different syntax, where one of them enables me to register with Paypal and  
the other one conducts a Google search, then what possible merit is there  
in that? And if I am writing a web browser, which should I support (I  
might even wish to be able to support both).

Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web:
Email:      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 Friday, 21 January 2005 12:13:09 UTC