Re: [Ltru] RE: Update ltru-initial-05 (was RE: Draft-14 ready...)

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> Sat, 15 October 2005 07:06 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EQg7r-0005sH-V2; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 03:06:40 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EQg7q-0005s6-0a for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 03:06:38 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25360 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 03:06:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.cs.tut.fi ([130.230.4.42]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EQgIh-00046c-95 for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 03:17:52 -0400
Received: from spam.cs.tut.fi (unknown [10.11.18.2]) by mail.cs.tut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD2AA01 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:06:17 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from mail.cs.tut.fi ([130.230.4.42]) by spam.cs.tut.fi (spam.cs.tut.fi [10.11.18.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17292-14 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:06:17 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from korppi.cs.tut.fi (korppi.cs.tut.fi [130.230.4.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.cs.tut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D8149BE for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:06:17 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:06:16 +0300
From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
To: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RE: Update ltru-initial-05 (was RE: Draft-14 ready...)
In-Reply-To: <p06230903bf75e74feadd@[69.181.216.204]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0510150953260.835@korppi.cs.tut.fi>
References: <FA13712B13469646A618BC95F7E1BA8F1E1CFF@alvmbxw01.prod.quest.corp> <p06230903bf75e74feadd@[69.181.216.204]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.tut.fi
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Ted Hardie wrote:

> Historically, IANA has moved registries around their site as needed.

Unfortunately, yes. That works against the purposes (the very
raison d'etre) of IANA and the registries.

> If you include a URI, you force them to maintain that URI or redirects to
> an appropriate URI.

If only we could force them! But despite some problems in the past, I 
think we need to expect IANA to maintain such stability. The other option 
is to find another registration authority.

As Tim Berners-Lee puts it, "Cool URIs don't change",
http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI

> I would suggest a pointer to the IANA site instead,
> since that is likely more stable.

A URL _is_ a pointer - a specific, exact pointer. Referring generically to 
a site (with a domain name, if we can expect that to be stable) is not 
user-friendly at all. Saying things like "go to http://www.iana.org/,
then click on 'bar', then on 'foo', and select 'zap' from the dropdown 
menu" would look foolish and would not be stable at all but bind us to a 
particular site design, as opposite to a specific URL, which _can_ be kept 
working if a site is reorganized.

A stable URL is also essential for the ability to link to a document
in hypertext.

-- 
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru