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

RE: Status of the RFC 1738 replacements

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:43:31 -0700
To: "'Paul Hoffman / IMC'" <phoffman@imc.org>, uri@w3.org
Message-id: <0I5Y008Z0NCJR3@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>


> Documents there was no discussion on, and we're probably done with:
>     draft-hoffman-gopher-uri-01.txt
>     draft-hoffman-prospero-uri-01.txt
>     draft-hoffman-telnet-uri-01.txt
>     draft-hoffman-wais-uri-01.txt

I continue to think 'gopher', 'prospero' and 'wais' should be dropped,
and that there is no reason to maintain them in standards
track, that publishing new RFCs describing these is not
a good use of IETF resources; unless the documents are published
on April 1, the schemes don't belong in standards track.

I think 'telnet' probably needs an update, but we haven't
people just haven't looked at it. Perhaps a specific last
call on it would finally solicit review.

> I propose that, at the beginning of December, we compare the existing 
> "file" Internet Drafts and pick one, and be done with it. Sound 
> reasonable?

I propose working harder to find someone willing to take
on the work. I understand your reluctance and don't blame
you for not wanting to do it, but I stand behind the belief
that not having a recommended practice for 'file:' is
harmful and that we can do better. I think we need to reach
harder to get to the people responsible for current implementations
of 'file:'. Again, this might take some time.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 00:43:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:34 GMT