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

Re: 4395bis ticket 70: RFC 2119 language in Section 3.1 of 4395bis

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:51:26 -0600
Message-ID: <4E56B5CE.5050105@stpeter.im>
To: Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>
CC: "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <PUBLIC-IRI@w3.org>
<hat type='individual'/>

On 8/22/11 5:00 PM, Chris Weber wrote:
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/70>
> 
> Does this working group and the document editors agree that a "SHOULD"
> is the most appropriate here?  If so this issue can be closed.

The current text is:

   New URI/IRI schemes SHOULD
   have clear utility to the broad Internet community, beyond that
   available with already registered URI/IRI schemes.

I think "SHOULD" is fine. I think "MUST" would be problematic because it
would lead to fruitless arguments about whether the utility of the
scheme is truly clear and whether the community that would benefit from
registration of the scheme is truly broad.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 20:51:56 GMT

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