Re: wizzy:, wizzy:

On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 17:03 +0000, Hammond, Tony wrote:
> > Assuring that ALL IANA-registered URI scheme tokens are 
> > unique is more likely to produce a useless, irrelevant 
> > registry than anything else that I can see.
> > 
> > If we give VendorCo the option to register wizzy: along with 
> > the sourceforge project, the community benefits from the 
> > ability to look up wizzy: in the regsitry and contact 
> > VendorCo to encourage them to participate in the rest of the 
> > standardization process.
> wizzy:, wizzy: - I guess I'm missing something important here. How can one
> dismabiguate the two tokens?

You cannot; you could not before they were provisionally registered,
and you cannot after they are provisionally registered.

> And 'rest of the standardization process'? What that then?

Hmm... have my comments been taken to mean that there should *only*
be a provisional registry, with no uniquness constraints? I didn't
say or mean anything like that. I support the permanent registry
with uniqueness constraints as well.

The 'rest of the standardization process' refers to the text in
the draft...

   To allow others to determine the results of technical review, the URI
   scheme registration process has two outcomes for URI scheme
   proposals: a 'provisional' status for URI schemes whose definitions
   have not been reviewed or were not accepted by the review process,
   and a 'permanent' status for those schemes that have been accepted by
   IETF review.  Review is based on general agreement that the URI
   scheme definition proposed meets the requirements in Section 2.

  -- 3.1  General

p.s. Wow! I-D URIs with previous version links! and datatracker links!
Look out for flying pigs!

Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 24 January 2005 17:01:20 UTC