Re: ID wording

[Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:57:48 -0700, Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Greetings again. Thanks for keeping the moratorium on ID discussion.
> I thought it would be best to do a sanity check to be sure people
> were in agreement on what it seems the consensus so far was.
> 
> - The format for IDs is going to be URIs, not plain strings.
> 
> - IDs must not change over time.
> 
> - Even though the format is a URI, the IDs are not expected to be
> dereferencable (although they might be).
> 
> - IDs MUST be compared character-by-character, no case-mapping, no
> %xx conversion, and so on.
> 
> - Receiving and gateway systems MUST NOT alter IDs in any way.
> 
> - Because IDs might be dereferenced, and because they must not be
> changed, it is a good idea to create them in a canonicalized form.
> There is no interoperability issues with this suggestion, so it is
> just a suggestion, not a SHOULD-level suggestion.
> 
> Does this match what people feel was the general consensus?

+1

    -joe

-- 
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org