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

Fwd: [Moderator Action] Re: Dropping 'gopher', 'wais', 'prospero'

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:33:07 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20041023093301.059c6760@localhost>
To: uri@w3.org


 >X-Original-To: duerst@homer.w3.org
 >Delivered-To: duerst@homer.w3.org
 >X-From_: nobody@wiggum.w3.org Fri Oct 22 15:58:12 2004
 >X-Authentication-Warning: grimsvotn.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE: pk owned
 >process doing -bs
 >X-Authentication-Warning: grimsvotn.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE: pk@localhost
 >didn't use HELO protocol
 >To: uri@w3.org
 >X-Organization: Uni Bielefeld, Technische Fakultaet
 >X-Phone: +49 521 106 2902
 >Old-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:47:25 +0200
 >From: Peter Koch <pk@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
 >X-caa-id: 38540c841f026abffce8
 >Sender: nobody <nobody@wiggum.w3.org>
 >X-Original-To: uri@w3.org
 >X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
 >Subject: [Moderator Action] Re: Dropping 'gopher', 'wais', 'prospero'
 >X-Envelope-To: uri
 >Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:58:13 +0000
 >X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on homer.w3.org
 >X-Spam-Level:
 >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.6 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
 >version=2.64
 >
 >
 >
 >John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote:
 >
 >> These are good arguments for making a gopher URI RFC and marking it
 >> Historic, but not for abandoning it altogether.  The wais and prospero
 >> URIs, OTOH, never had significant implementation and can IMHO be
 >> allowed to languish in Obsolete status.
 >
 >the current track seems not to support this distinction:
 >
 >RFC 2026, 4.2.4  Historic
 >
 >   A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
 >   specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
 >   assigned to the "Historic" level.
 >
 >gopher: doesn't have a direct successor (http: doesn't really count)
 >and isn't as obsolete as wais: or prospero:. ``Historic'' status is even
 >less communicated than the standards track, so that might send the wrong
 >message. gopher: could be recycled as Proposed or even be advanced to
 >Draft since interoperable implementations are still (or: again) there.
 >
 >-Peter 
Received on Monday, 25 October 2004 18:50:59 GMT

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