W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2008

RE: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea

From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:36:19 -0400
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@us.ibm.com>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <03e401c8e036$70185dc0$50491940$@com>

> There is no "URI group" -- there's a list of people subscribed to the 
> URI mailing list. That being said, I haven't seen *any* kind of 
> consensus that RFC3986 should be changed. I've seen some discussion 
> about whether RFC3987bis should expand on the "LEIRI" topic, and it 
> seems Martin Dürst was considering that input.

It seems to me that the following facts are true:

* The URI group/mailing list is not actively working to update or change the
URI specs.
* Over the last few weeks, it has become clear that the URI specs need to
change for certain aspects of browser behavior and HTML to make sense and/or
work right.
* The current URI/URL/"HTTP URL"/IRI breakout is artificial and can/should
be fixed in the URI spec.

If what Julian says is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it), how do we
get some traction on this issue? Who do we engage? Does it make sense,
instead of trying to do the work of an active URI group within the HTML 5
spec (the "HTTP URL" initiative) for a number of us to get involved with
getting an *active* URI group going and simply working within that framework
on that issue? Yes, it might feel like "packing the court", but if the spec
is in desperate need of some reality-based changes, and there is no *active*
group willing or able to even consider changes, then I don't see any issue
with it.

J.Ja
Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 13:37:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:19 GMT