- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:33:21 +0900
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, uri@w3.org
At 13:55 04/10/22, Larry Masinter wrote: > > >Just to be clear that this isn't a new position on >my part, I'll point you at > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Sep/0019.html >and before that >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Mar/0043.html Repeating positions usually doesn't help much in discussions. Given that Paul has already written the 'gopher', 'wais', and 'prospero' drafts, what about for example publish these docs as informational? This would keep things documented, but clearly signal that they are not on the standards track. Regards, Martin. >Consider section 3.2 of >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt > >While gopher is implemented, it is not widely implementation, >implementations are declining rather than rising >http://gopher.floodgap.com/gopher/, and there is no interest >in further work, updating gopher or advancement. > >Certainly there may be some interest in preserving >antique protocols for fun and amusement, but there's >no point in advancing them along standards track. > >I see real value in updating 'file', 'ftp' and (to some >degree) 'telnet' to match their actual use, and I appreciate >the effort to bring them along and advance them on >standards track. > >Larry >-- >http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 05:58:16 UTC