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

Re: RFC 2822 email addresses in tag URIs

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:37:43 -0400
To: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-Id: <20051013133745.E41134F121@homer.w3.org>

> >  > It's at a very early stage, and I won't bet that it flies in
> >>  the next years, but OTOH it would be a bad plan if you limit
> >>  tag URLs _unnecessarily_ in a way that cannot work with future
> >>  I18N Mail Addresses (= IMA).
> >
> >I don't think it is a "bad plan" to limit Tag URIs to only
> >allow a relatively limited set of email addresses, as long as
> >it is easy for anyone to obtain an email address of the required
> >form.
> Tim is suggesting we limit the range of addr-spec allowed in 'tag' URIs
> so that they are legible.
> You are suggesting it's no problem for one speaker group to be able
> to tag things with addr-spec values that plainly say "this is mine" and
> others to be limited to marking things with inscrutable Romanji machine
> codes.
> For the latter groups, this scheme would offer no advantages over
> a hash such as provided in the opaquelocktoken scheme.  For the
> elect, it gives tags that are friendly names, too.
> Think about it.
> Al

My problem here is that tags are screamingly simple except for this
issue, which is so complex I don't understand it at all.  And it's
trivial to extend the syntax later.  So why not handle these things in
a later version, pushed by someone who actually wants to use these
possible new features?

    -- sandro
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2005 13:37:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:47 UTC