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

RE: Proposed Status Categories for URI Scheme registry

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:10:37 -0600
To: "Weibel,Stu" <weibel@oclc.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-Id: <1106665837.5075.112.camel@localhost>

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.
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines/

> 
> 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 http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2005 15:10:38 UTC

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