Re: [url] Requests for Feedback (was Feedback from TPAC)

FWIW, I noticed that the WHATWG "living standard" is referenced later, but not 
described in the section about WHATWG.

#g
--

On 15/12/2014 11:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 12/15/2014 02:14 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> I’m happy that you did this. I'd been meaning to, but
>> I was hoping for more feedback about the right direction.
>> It's better, though, to have something to shoot at.
>
> I was hoping for more feedback too, but meanwhile I, too, feel that it is better
> to have something to shoot at.
>
>> I'd like to make a pass before it get submitted.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> =====
>> I've been thinking that it would be better to include
>> the "plan" and not just the problem statement,
>> since you want feedback on both.
>>
>> I mean something based on
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2014Nov/0000.html
>> and subsequent planning on this list.
>> Make that section 4.
>
> Wasn't clear to me that problem statements should also include proposed
> solutions, but I agree that I want feedback on both.
>
> Done.
>
>> =======
>> I’m reluctant to be listed first, ever. And it needs more
>> work before I'd want it submitted with my name on it,
>> though I'm willing to help. For now I'd just put me second.
>
> Done.
>
>> ====
>> Nit: better section headings, e.g.,
>>
>> 1. Brief History of URL standards
>> 2. Current Organizations and Specs in development
>
> Done.
>
>> ======
>> 2. organizations: These need some introductions and
>> hyperlinks
>
> I've added hyperlinks.  In this brief document, it is my hope that this is
> sufficient.
>
>> ======
>> Problem statement: The main problem is conflicting
>> specs that don't match each other and overlap.
>> Maybe this should separate 'Problem Statement from
>>   IETF point of view' from other problem
>> statements.
>
> Added.
>
>> =====
>> Security considerations: I think the main impact is when
>> URLs work differently in different systems.
>
> Added.
>
>> =====
>> I don't see why RFC 2119 is cited, there is no
>> normative conformance.
>
> Removed.
>
>> ======
>> You cite [kerwin-file-scheme] but it needs to be
>> in the problem statement.
>
> This should be covered by the addition you proposed above. Additionally, I've
> now cited this work in the plan section.
>
>> I suppose each of these could be raised as issues.
>
> This is fine.  Keep them coming!
>
>> Larry
>> --
>> http://larry.masinter.net
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 4:06 PM
>>> To: Mark Nottingham; Larry Masinter
>>> Cc: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org; Philippe Le Hégaret; Wendy Seltzer
>>> Subject: Re: [url] Requests for Feedback (was Feedback from TPAC)
>>>
>>> On 12/08/2014 05:29 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>> Larry, are you saying you want to get this approved as Informational,
>>> or that plus IETF Consensus?
>>>
>>> I've taken the liberty of adapting Larry's blog post to RFC format.  In
>>> the process, I've lightly updated and added to it.  Still, the bulk of
>>> the content remains Larry's, so the bulk of the credit goes to him.  As
>>> to any errors I've introduced in the process (which is quite likely as
>>> I'm not familiar with the template or relevant practices), the blame
>>> goes to me.
>>>
>>> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.html
>>> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.txt
>>> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.xml
>>>
>>> For those inclined to do so, feel free to send pull requests or create
>>> issues on the following:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/webspecs/url/blob/develop/docs/url-problem-
>>> statement.xml
>>>
>>> Comments via email are also fine.
>>>
>>> As to Mark's question, I'm inclined to ask for "plus IETF Consensus".
>>> That being said, I've been unable to find what this precisely entails.
>>> If asking for this means that it might get pushback, I'm fine with that;
>>> the one thing I would not be fine with is it stalling.
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>
>>> P.S.  Larry: if you have a problem with what I have done and wish to
>>> have your name and/or content removed, simply say so, and I will make
>>> the necessary changes.
>>>
>>>>> On 9 Dec 2014, at 5:30 am, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Of the suggestions I favor:
>>>>>
>>>>> Create and submit an Internet Draft which is the "Problem
>>> Statement" For the "URL mess", which explains the problems we're
>>> trying to solve, as well as at least an outline of a plan forward. Then get it
>>> approved as an Informational RFC. It is probably necessary to document
>>> the rationale, anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm willing to help, or offer some text (from my "the URL mess" blog
>>> post) or updating such a document.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't like this idea, make a better suggestion for getting the
>>> feedback Sam is asking for.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Larry
>>>>> --
>>>>> http://larry.masinter.net
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 4:45 AM
>>>>>> To: "Martin J. Dürst"; Mark Nottingham
>>>>>> Cc: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org; Philippe Le Hégaret; Wendy Seltzer
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [url] Requests for Feedback (was Feedback from TPAC)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/07/2014 11:18 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2014/12/06 07:38, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2014 03:49 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you want a “yes, we’re aware of it” response, I think you’ve
>>>>>>>>> already got it, but you’re more than welcome to ask for it in
>>> official
>>>>>>>>> form.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I am trying to do is distinguish between:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) I've read the draft, I approve of it, and therefore I have no
>>>>>>>> comments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) I've not read the draft, and therefore I have no comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think such statements are rather easy to make for individuals, but
>>> not
>>>>>>> for IETF (nor for that matter for the W3C or even the WHATWG).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Despite the fact that there is no active WG within the IETF
>>> working on
>>>>>>>> this, I would have thought that this would be a topic of significant
>>>>>>>> interest to the broader IETF community.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is all true. The problem is that this interest is spread out very
>>>>>>> very thinly. Summing up every splitter of interest will add up to
>>>>>>> significant interest, but the people who are actually interested
>>> enough
>>>>>>> to read the document and comment are few and far between.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've met in person with Area Directors.  I've asking for the W3C/IETF
>>>>>> liaisons to make this happen.  I've outlined the beginnings of a
>>> problem
>>>>>> statement.  I've been very publicly working on a specification.  I've
>>>>>> documented significant differences between implementations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there are people who want to help, I'm willing to work with them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The one thing I am not intending to do is to stop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,   Martin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>>>>
>

Received on Monday, 15 December 2014 12:26:21 UTC