* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Ticket #70 (closed defect: fixed)

Opened 3 years ago

Last modified 3 years ago

RFC 2119 language in Section 3.1 of 4395bis

Reported by: evnikita2@gmail.com Owned by:
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: 4395bis Version:
Severity: - Keywords:
Cc: evnikita2@gmail.com

Description

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2011Aug/0002.html:


Section 3.1:

New URI/IRI schemes SHOULD
have clear utility to the broad Internet community, beyond that

I don't understand use of "SHOULD" here. From RFC 2119:

  1. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there

may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

What are such "valid reasons"? I suppose you should use here "MUST" or
"must", but not "SHOULD". This is a requirement, not a recommendation.


Note: later comments revealed that SHOULD may be appropriate to suit cases when the scheme may have the utility to the limited part of the Internet community; so I suppose the editors will decide on this issue.

Change History

comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by masinter@adobe.com

There was quite a bit of discussion that the "broad applicability" requirement might be inappropriate or counter-productive, and that rejecting scheme registrations because of a perception of lack of broad applicability might wind up with unregistered schemes rather than fewer schemes in use.

I don't think this is entirely editorial, but I might rather remove this requirement.

comment:2 Changed 3 years ago by evnikita2@gmail.com

  • Cc evnikita2@gmail.com added

comment:3 Changed 3 years ago by chris@lookout.net

WG consensus seems to be keeping this a "SHOULD". See:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2011Aug/0055.html

Based on this the issue can be closed.

comment:4 Changed 3 years ago by masinter@adobe.com

  • Status changed from new to closed
  • Resolution set to fixed

Based on the discussion at IETF82, the following changes

< is costly; some parts of URI/IRI processing may be scheme-dependent,
---

may be costly; some parts of URI/IRI processing may be scheme-dependent,

207,209c207,211
< New URI/IRI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad
< Internet community, beyond that available with already registered URI/IRI
< schemes.
---

New schemes should have utility to the
Internet community beyond that available with already registered
schemes. The registration document SHOULD discuss the utility
of the scheme being registered.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.