Re: update RFC 2396

My opinion is that only 1% of that work requires a normative change
to the standard, and that is simply establishing a default encoding
for on-the-wire URI (the one currently being used by most Web browsers).
The rest is UI recommendations, which are being developed by the W3C.

I do not believe in having two different definitions of the same
protocol element floating around on the standards track.

....Roy


On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 10:42  AM, Ted Hardie wrote:

> 	The IRI work looks to be extensive enough to require its own
> discussion and progress through the standards process; I don't see
> that as something that would fit in an update for something recycling
> at Draft standard.  Or is there some (smaller)piece of it that you see
> incorporating here prior to going through that process?

Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 14:38:35 UTC