- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:57:27 -0700
- To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, uri@w3.org
> 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?
There were some fairly strongly stated opinions that we should
try harder to avoid "multiple registrations", even of provisional
schemes.
> 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?
Yes
> Because it seems overly burdensome to both registrant
> and the IESG, for a provisional registration.
This was intended. Do you know any instances where we've actually had
multiple, completely different uses of the same scheme name? If there
are just variants, we should just update the registration rather than
have multiple conflicting registrations.
> 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.
I think we've had strong opinions that we should make it easier
to register the first use, but not easy to register alternative usages,
as a way of avoiding duplicates.
> Editorial; the required guidelines in section 3 need reformatting, to
> make them distinguishable from each other.
OK
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2005 17:57:40 UTC