- 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
> > > 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