Re: ID wording

[Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 18, 2004, at 1:57 PM, Paul Hoffman / IMC 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.

+1 - well said.


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/