W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2004

Re: BOF Request for URIREV04

From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:42:27 -0400
Message-ID: <00b401c470f5$9318c8f0$8f9c938c@lib.loc.gov>
To: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>, "'Tim Kindberg'" <timothy@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Cc: "'sandro hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'tim Kindberg'" <timothy@hpl.hp.com>, <agenda@ietf.org>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, <uri@w3.org>

From: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>
> > Could you clarify the meaning of "problematic" -- for whom: the
> > registrants experiencing the IETF's processes, or the IETF,
> > the W3C, or a combination of those? Will 'tag' be included?
> My goal was to have an open discussion about why some
> schemes seemed to be controversial or difficult,
> and what the nature of the problems might be. I would
> hope to avoid any significant discussion of any individual
> scheme, except perhaps as an example.

Without discussing specific schemes in detail, could you at least list those
that are "problematic"?  I assume that if "problematic schemes" are on the
agenda then someone must be able to list them. It would even be better if
there could be a short summary of the problem for each!

And more generally, I think I speak for a number of people in suggesting
that it would be very helpful to have some "official" list of
pending/proposed uri schemes (with a status for each), just as there is a
current "Official IANA Registry of URI Schemes" at

I won't be at the meeting nor will any of my colleagues as far as I know,
but perhaps you could discuss this?

Thanks.  --Ray
Received on Friday, 23 July 2004 17:02:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:07 UTC