Re: ID wording

[Eric Scheid <eric.scheid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 19/8/04 6:57 AM, "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <phoffman@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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