W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-03.txt

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:11:40 +0900
Message-ID: <4E35FD4C.10200@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>, public-iri@w3.org
On 2011/07/31 15:01, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-07-31 06:27, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am not opposed to publication of the document, but I still think the
>> approach I proposed
>> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2011Jun/0097.html) is
>> better. Don't you think so?
>> ...
>
> I don't think so. It's the way how specs should be revised.

I agree with Julian. It's a good idea to split up really large specs, 
but it's a bad idea to create piecemeal specs where implementers have to 
hunt down little details all over the place.

Also, in this case, the editors were fine with updating the whole spec, 
and have (as far as they think) done most of their work, so I think it 
would be a bad idea to create more work for them.

Regards,    Martin.


P.S.: Thanks for integrating the i18n pieces into 
draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-uri-scheme-05. Another example where spec 
fragmentation would have been a bad idea.
Received on Monday, 1 August 2011 01:12:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:52:02 GMT