RE: Proposed Status Categories for URI Scheme registry

On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 08:55 -0500, Weibel,Stu wrote:
> My proposal for three active categories of URI Schemes is based on (1)
> the insistence by others that duplicate names have a home in the
> registry, and (2) what I believe to be an uncontestable Good Thing -
> that no future duplicate scheme names be permitted.
> Previous arguments on this list assert the need to reflect the reality
> of past *and* future wild-type URI schemes (roughly: people will do what
> they want to do, and we have no means to prevent them from doing so, and
> the registry is more useful if it acknowledges the existence of such).
> To permit the possibility of duplication of future URI scheme tokens
> based on a small number of existing inadvertant duplications is ill
> advised in the extreme.  It needlessly exposes future innovations to the
> vulnerability of inadvertant or malicious duplication.
> The proposal aside, can we be clear about these two requirements?  My
> proposal meets them both.

So does draft-hansen-etc, no?

> Charles's suggestion below meets them also, in a simpler way (always a
> feature), with the one caveat that there will be no accomodation for
> duplicate wild-type registrations in the future (except perhaps as x-
> entries).
> To summarize:
> Keep the high entry bar for the Permanent category
> Allow a lower entry bar for the Provisional category, and either
>    a.) require unique tokens for ALL new entries, or 
>    b.) provide for a third category without protection from 
>        duplication (vernacular... x-... whatever).

I still don't see why the 3rd category. draft-hansen-etc requires
unique tokens on all permanent entries, and prohibits new
provisional entries from clashing with existing permanent entries.

Hmm... I can't actually confirm that prohibition from the text.
Perhaps it's worth clarifying in a future draft.

> stu
> -----
> Charles Lindsey wrote, in part:
> Surely the essence of the proposal should be to prevent duplication of
> scheme-names in the future, even though we know that a few of them have
> slipped through in the past (it would be helpful for someone to provide
> examples of these).
> So if there was a requirement for uniqueness in the Registry, then there
> could be exceptional provision for the existing duplicates of the form
> "This scheme-name is currently used for schemes A and B (provide
> pointers to details of both). It will not be possible for this
> scheme-name to proceed to permanent registration until this anomaly has
> been resolved".
> And you would not allow registration of new duplicates in the future.
Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2005 15:10:38 UTC