- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 22:50:10 -0600
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
- CC: uri@bunyip.com, moore@cs.utk.edu, urn-ietf@bunyip.com, timbl@w3.org, masinter@parc.xerox.com, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, lassila@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tbray@textuality.com, jeanpa@microsoft.com, cmsmcq@uic.edu, dsr@w3.org, lehors@w3.org, ij@w3.org
Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > Just to see what it would be like, I rewrote the URL spec into a URI spec. > The result is at > > http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/url/uri.txt Last Modified: Thursday, October 30, 1997 7:26:21 GMT I just got around to reading this carefully. > I am not very happy with it, I am! This is JUST what I need! In particular, the HTML 4 spec needs the term URI-reference as described therein. I'm quite confident that TimBL would prefer to have his name on this document than on the one with URL in the title. (I'll get him to confirm if anybody really cares.) > since the additional terms tend to cloud > the implementation advice. I could fix that by calling everything a URL > except in the Introduction, but it probably isn't worth the effort. > Others may feel differently, so give it a look if you care about this > issue. Now... if the editing-fairy will similarly sprinkle URI-dust on the process draft (and if this document goes forward in place of the one with URL in the title), I'll be all set! > So, my feeling is that draft 09 is the final URL draft and it should be > sent to the IESG now. "should be sent..." who does the sending? you're the editor, and there's no WG chair, so that's you, no? -- Dan http://www.w3.org/Architecture/
Received on Thursday, 30 October 1997 23:48:21 UTC