Re: [apps-discuss] A modest proposal for MIME types (and URI schemes)

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Ned Freed <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >> * DO NOT try to avoid duplicates
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure this makes sense. I think it would make sense if it read "give
> >> > up on trying to avoid duplicates at all cost". But it almost reads like
> >> > "let's have many duplicates, this will be fun".
> >
> >> I think we should discourage collisions, but the very existence of the
> >> registry does that.  If a collision arose from registry avoidance, and
> >> implementations have been deployed widely, then what more can we do
> >> but accept it?
> >
> > Agreed, but in practice it doesn't seem like outright collisions have
> > been much of an issue.

> I think what Roy F. is saying is that the cost of registration has to
> come down a lot.

And what I'm saying is that the current cost is, Roy's beliefs to the contrary
notwithstanding, quite low - as in answer a half dozen questions on a web form
low. And we've been actively pursuing various tweaks to move the bar even
lower.

Furthermore, the proposed alternative of allowing a sort of free-for-all where
random folks can register and comment on stuff willy-nilly, is actually pretty
much the process we already have for media type comments. Except here's the
funny thing: Despite the current ready availability of the process that's
supposed to cure all our ills, essentially nobody ever uses it.

> If collisions are a problem at all they must be a
> relatively small problem, and you (and Roy F.) claim that collisions
> are of little consequence, in which case we can lower the cost of
> registration still more.

This assumes that currently there's significant cost associated with collision
checks. I can't speak to other registries, but I can assure you the amount
of time spent on this in the case of media types is truly negligable.

				Ned