W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > March 2005

Re: [Uri-review] Re: FW: Last Call: 'Domain Name System UniformResource Identifiers' to Proposed Standard

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 06:44:02 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20050303053109.05da6b00@localhost>
To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, uri-review@ietf.org

At 03:33 05/03/03, Leslie Daigle wrote:
 >
 >I disagree with the proposal.
 >
 >As you have noted, the uri@w3.org mailing list has been
 >"upgraded" to serve a purpose for the W3C URI IG activity.
 >
 >While there may be a significant overlap between people
 >interested in that, and folks who should be discussing
 >IETF documents proposing new URI schemes, it is not
 >a complete match, and the formal activities are different.

I agree that formally, the activities are different. The
issue is not so much (I hope) the W3C URI IG, because the
list is at the same time, and continues to be, the mailing
list of the former IETF URI WG, which the W3C volunteered
to host after bunyip could no longer do it
(and it's listed as such at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi).
We also carry the full archives of that list, see e.g.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/1994Dec/0013.html.


Back to what I personally really care about, namely the
quality of the review, there are ample example over the
duration of the existence of the uri-review@ietf.org list
that the quality of the review a scheme received was a
lot better when that happened on uri@w3.org than on
uri-review@ietf.org. That has nothing at all to do with
where the list is hosted, or whether it's called, among
else, an IG or what, but it has a lot to do with the fact
that, mostly for historical reasons, there are a lot more
people, and a lot more people with the right experience
and knowledge, hanging out on uri@w3.org than on
uri-review@ietf.org. If we can fix that, then all's well.
If we can't (and it hasn't happened since for the last
two years, but that doesn't say that it might not happen).

So my main question is what ideas and actual efforts you
are thinking about or proposing to fix the above situation.


Regards,    Martin.



 >Leslie.
 >
 >Martin Duerst wrote:
 >> As noted by Dan, the uri-review@ietf.org mailing list has never
 >> taken off. All the real discussions have been taking place on
 >> this list. There was discussion on closing uri-review@w3.org,
 >> my guess is that the only reason that discussion wasn't conclusive
 >> was that a lot of peolpe who care about URIs and URI schemes
 >> were just not on that list.
 >> So I suggest to use uri@w3.org as the list for URI scheme reviews;
 >> the chance that a new URI scheme gets some good comments is much
 >> higher on this list than on uri-review@ietf.org.
 >> Regards,    Martin.
 >> P.S.: While uri@w3.org recently has been 'upgraded' to be the
 >>       W3C URI IG, it continues to serve as the mailing list for
 >>       the former IETF URL WG (just hosted by W3C). 
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2005 21:53:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:35 GMT