W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2007

Re: News and nntp URIs

From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:10:03 -0000
To: URI <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t15ay1vv6hl8nm@clerew.man.ac.uk>

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:41:14 -0000, Frank Ellermann  
<nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:

> Charles Lindsey wrote:
>
>> There has been (one-sided) discussion of it on the ietf-nntp list
>
> Yes, a bunch of proposals to overrule STD 66 already discussed here
> a year ago.

Nothing contrary to STD 66 that I am aware of.

> | we came to what seemed to me to be a policy question of whether
> | URI schemes are better off defining all of the options one might
> | want to use [...] or to intentionally limit the syntax to things
> | that can be trusted to be implemented by most all interpreters.
>  <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/1182> (2007-09-21)

A reasonable assumption is that what people eventually implement (which  
currently varies widely in the absence of adequate standards) will be what  
the NNTP standard [RFC 3977] now requires (which again is much cleaner  
that the jumbled selection of features in [RFC977]).
>
>> If it goes to IETF Last Call in its present state, I shall object
>> vigorously.
>
> Maybe that will help to get new opinions.  There weren't that many
> opinions wrt "wildmat" URIs (four, IIRC).

Indeed, which is why it needs to be discussed in a forum (the ietf-nntp  
list - http://lists.eyrie.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-
nntp) where one can expect the NNTP experts to be found.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 14:10:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:37 GMT