Re: URI Template Status?

• From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
• Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:26:39 -0800
• To: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
• CC: uri@w3.org
• Message-ID: <455B5BDF.8060406@gmail.com>

Mike Schinkel wrote:
> Thank you for the explanation.  Any thoughts on whether you'll go with
> Standards Track or Experimental RFC?

No clue at this point. It largely depends on how it's picked up by
implementors.  If it appears that folks are actually going to pick it up
and use it then a Standards Track would be appropriate.  At this point,
however, it would be inappropriate to wager a guess where this will end up.

> 
> Also, can you clarify what's required for "two demonstratably interoperable
> implementations?"
> 

Two independent code bases that implement the spec in a consistent way
with no significant interoperability issues. e.g. both should be able to
take the same URI template and produce the same result.

- James

Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 18:51:10 UTC