W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > October 2010

Re: registration templates, Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft

From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 06:54:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4CBA8FA6.8060304@isode.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, IRI WG mailing list <public-iri@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 05.10.2010 06:17, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>
>> ...
>> My draft does not include the registration template. That has a lead to
>> some complaints, but my reading of RFC 4395 is that it is not required,
>> and http://www.w3.org/mid/455CCAAD.2040407@att.com Tony Hansen confirmed
>> that. The template is not currently used outside the specification when
>> it is part of an RFC, and in my case it would just be a TOC for the do-
>> cument; I think it should be clarified that it is not needed in this
>> case.
>> ...
>
> Disagreeing :-)
>
> A registration template is very useful, because:
>
> - it forces the author to think about all the required fields, and
>
> - it makes it easy for reviewers to actually find the relevant 
> sections in the spec.

It also makes it easier for IESG reviewers to verify correctness of all 
fields. So +1 for having a template.

> Thus I'd like the template to become mandatory.

Best Regards,
Alexey

-- 
IETF Application Area Director, <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html>
Internet Messaging Team Lead, <http://www.isode.com>
JID: same as my email address
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 06:53:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:52:00 GMT