- From: JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:06:08 +0200
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>,Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>, "Anne van Kesteren (annevk@opera.com)" <annevk@opera.com>, "Peter Saint-Andre (stpeter@stpeter.im)" <stpeter@stpeter.im>, "Pete Resnick (presnick@qualcomm.com)" <presnick@qualcomm.com>, Martin D?rst (duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp) <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "ted.ietf@gmail.com" <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>,iucg <iucg@ietf.org>, IUTF <iutf@iutf.org>
At 21:55 13/10/2012, Larry Masinter wrote: >I know there are a lot of private conversations about this, but I'd >like to try, in the time frame of the next W3C TPAC and IETF >meetings, to work out a solution to the issue of "forking" the URL >specifications. Does everyone know what the issues are? >Is everyone willing to talk about solutions? > >I think forking is harmful and unnecessary. > >Bcc: "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" IETF W3C Liaison > "public-webapps@w3.org" W3C Web Applications group > chartered to work on something in W3C URL releated > "www-tag@w3.org" W3C Technical Architecture Group, since > we discussed it > " public-iri@w3.org" mailing list of IETF IRI working > group, responsible for IRI spec > >Did I leave anyone out? IUCG is certainly interested discussing this from an IUser point of view. We are currently preparing a Draft on the syntax of digital names for the whole digital ecosystem (WDE) with the same ambition of not forking/keeping interoperable the URL specs. We are in the early phase of working on an Intelligent Use Digital Name Server prototype to support different namespaces, addressing plans, including DNS, IPv4 and IPv6 requests. We focus on multilinguistic naming, wiki exchanges and semantic addressing. At this stage CCN (content centered networking) with early considerations on "wiki 3.0" is the matter. jfc NB. We are still small, emerging and disseminated so our present working approach is to start from a real prototype services experimentation. We are in line with the report to the IESG on the constraints met, for example by the French language semantic with the IDNA2008 RFCs (lack of support of majuscules) and the reliability issues discussed by the AD irt. the IDNA concept. We always said we would address this through the ML-DNS fringe to fringe architecture (the emerging IUTF area). Our interest includes "common names" and IPv6 address names (as local IPv6 addresses through IPv4 access) as well.
Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 18:06:42 UTC