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

draft-hansen section 3 comments

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:47:07 -0400
To: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050621144707.GD17315@markbaker.ca>

In section 3, step 2 ("There is not already a entry with the same URI
scheme name."), my interpretation of concensus on previous discussions
of this point suggested that it was fine to have multiple, provisional
registrations for the same scheme name.  Did I miss some discussion?  Or
was the next sentence, "In the unfortunate case that there are multiple,
different uses of the same scheme name, the IESG may approve a request
to modify an existing entry to note the separate use", intended to 
address that?  Because it seems overly burdensome to both registrant
and the IESG, for a provisional registration.  Obviously we want to make
it clear that choosing a scheme name that's already in use is a bad
idea, but we should IMO, also make it easy for developers to tell the
community when they've screwed up (by deploying software that (mis)uses
an existing scheme), and that seems to me to be best served by a low
cost registration process.

Editorial; the required guidelines in section 3 need reformatting, to
make them distinguishable from each other.

Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.          http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies   http://www.coactus.com
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2005 14:46:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC