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

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

From: Weibel,Stu <weibel@oclc.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:36:19 -0500
Message-ID: <8CC50D49B6828C4FBAB7DA1FCAB0526A271421@OAEXCH1SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: <uri@w3.org>

So, this raises the question:

Is it necessary to support a requirement that future duplicates be
recognized in the IANA registry, or can one rely on a high visibility
and comprehensible registration procedure to prevent future duplications
(or at least force them into a rogue status)?

If the former, then I believe the Vernacular category deserves further

If the latter, then I believe that Charles Lindsey's approach meets the
requirement, and is further to be preferred by virtue of simplicity.


-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 9:48 AM
To: Weibel,Stu; uri@w3.org
Subject: RE: Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in

At 13:24 20/01/05 -0500, Weibel,Stu wrote:
>It would be helpful if those who hold the view expressed here could 
>indicate explain why assuring uniqueness is detrimental.

In the case of email header fields, it was recognized that duplicates
*did* occur (rarely) in the wild, and that the primary need was to be
able to document what did exist in order that designers could avoid
them.  Local experiments sometimes escape and become global de-facto
standards.  By prohibiting provisional registration of duplicates they
would be forced out of sight, with no clear way for designers of new
fields to avoid duplicates.


Graham Klyne
For email:
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2005 16:37:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:46 UTC