- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:02:25 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, public-webarch-comments@w3.org
A while back, GK wrote http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/0024.html > Section 4.5.1: to wit http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/#xml-when > Another reference with discussion relating to this topic of choosing to use > XML can be found here: > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3117.txt , section 5.1 > > [for information] which we're tracking as http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?#klyne25 We discussed (well, triaged it) it this week http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/att-0020/_tag.html and I said I'd look into it. After swapping it all in, All I can say is: I defer to Chris and Norm. Some details... Yes, section 5.1 of RFC3117 is pretty reasonable, and I don't mind at all if we cite it near The discussion here should be seen as ancillary to the content of [IETFXML]. perhaps ... of [IETFXML]. The topic is also discussed in [APPDESIGN]. Actually, that sentence surprised me a little -- [IETFXML] is about IETF Protocol, which is closely related to Web technologies, but doesn't completely subsume it. (I looked up ancillary to make sure I understood it... "Of secondary importance") Anyway... [IETFXML] seems to be an Internet Draft from Nov 2002; why doesn't it cite RFC3117 (which dates from November 2001) I wonder? Anyway, this seems like a reasonable informative citation to add to webarch. Norm, I'm happy for webarch to cite it. Chris, I expect you'd agree, but I wouldn't mind confirmation. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 30 July 2004 19:02:21 UTC