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

RE: Status of the RFC 1738 replacements

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:35:28 -0700
Message-Id: <p06110401bd9ef4a3e80d@[67.180.209.197]>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'Paul Hoffman / IMC'" <phoffman@imc.org>, uri@w3.org

I think one of the primary reasons for doing this is to get RFC 1738
out of the mix.  As it stands now, even the full standard URI
RFC will have to be listed as updating, rather than obsoleting
1738.  Getting all of these published independently allows us
to do that.  If, at some later time, we need to mark individual
schemes as historic, we can do so.  But first things first, please;
getting them independently documented is needed to avoid continued
confusion on the role of 1738.  How soon or how long before
we consider marking historic can take place afterwards.

			regards,
				Ted

At 5:43 PM -0700 10/21/04, Larry Masinter wrote:
>  > 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 17:36:22 GMT

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