W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2003

RE: URI scheme uniqueness

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 22:54:50 +0200
To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCAEBMIBAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

I think I've collected enough evidence (people that indeed thought that they
can achieve global uniqueness without using an IETF-registered scheme) that
this should at least be added to the RFC2518 issues list :-)


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Elias Sinderson
  Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 7:47 PM
  To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
  Subject: Re: URI scheme uniqueness

<Elias Sinderson> Perhaps something along the lines of the following would
be acceptable?

"...are free to use any URI scheme so long as it meets the stated uniqueness
requirements. One way to accomplish this is to use IETF-registered URI
    <Julian Reschke> That's plain and simply wrong. The only way is to use
an URI scheme that
*both* is IETF-registered and meets the uniqueness criterium.<Elias
Sinderson> Goodness, you are correct, mea culpa - I see your point now.

<Elias Sinderson> This language seems specific enough to be unambiguous
while flexible enough to allow for other mechanisms to ensure uniqueness.
The drawback of not [...]
    <Julian Reschke> See, this kind of proves that the spec needs to be
enhanced. You and others seem to read it as a license to come up with
"private" URI schemes, which is plainly wrong and breaks the uniqueness
requirements. Therefore the text
should be clarified.<Elias Sinderson> Yes, I agree, the current text allows
for a looser interpretation than is desired - consider me in favor of
modifying the current wording.

Received on Monday, 4 August 2003 16:55:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:29 UTC