- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 14:18:08 +0200
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On 02/08/2013, at 9:35 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > Hi Mark! Hi David, > > Regarding > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00 > Nice work. A few substantive comments: Thanks. > > 1. In section 2.3 and elsewhere, what is meant by an "application"? And what is meant by an "extension"? I think this needs to be clarified. Right at the top of Section 2... > 2. Somewhere the document should probably say explicitly that: (a) URI owners may standardise the structure of their own URIs; but (b) publishing that structure may make the structure hard to change without breaking clients that have started depending on the old structure. I want to keep this pretty focused on BCPs for standards, which have much bigger consequences. The draft does say that resource owners control their URIs; I'm using "standardize" in the IETF sense... > > 3. I think it would be good to address the question: Given that the URI owner controls the structure of his/her URIs, what is wrong with the URI owner choosing to adopt a structure that is specified by someone else in a specification? Yes. > > And some editorial comments: > > 4. It would be good to use the term "squatting" somewhere -- maybe in the title? -- since that is what this is commonly called. DanC's early post about this problem: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0162.html Will take a look, thanks. > > 5. Regarding: > [[ > Client Assumptions - When conventions are standardised, some > clients will inevitably assume that the standards are in use when > they are seen. > ]] > Clarify: To what does "they" refer? > > 6. The draft mentions the HTTP and HTTPS schemes (using UPPER case letters), but as RFC3896 states: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.1 > [[ > Although schemes are case- > insensitive, the canonical form is lowercase and documents that > specify schemes must do so with lowercase letters. > ]] > > 7. Change: > [[ > all other specifications MUST NOT > constrain, define structure or semantics for them. > ]] > to: > [[ > all other specifications MUST NOT > constrain or define structure or semantics for any path component. > ]] > > 8. Misc: > s/artefacts/artifacts/g > s/be used preclude/be used precludes/ > s/party; its owner/party: its owner/ > > Thanks, > David Thank you! Cheers, > > > On 08/02/2013 01:38 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> FYI; this is an attempt to address a problem that's becoming more common in IETF specs as well as those elsewhere. >> >> Comments / suggestions welcome. >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org >>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00.txt >>> Date: 2 August 2013 7:36:31 AM GMT+02:00 >>> To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> >>> >>> >>> A new version of I-D, draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00.txt >>> has been successfully submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the >>> IETF repository. >>> >>> Filename: draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn >>> Revision: 00 >>> Title: Standardising Structure in URIs >>> Creation date: 2013-08-02 >>> Group: Individual Submission >>> Number of pages: 7 >>> URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00.txt >>> Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn >>> Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00 >>> >>> >>> Abstract: >>> It is sometimes attractive to specify a particular structure for URIs >>> (or parts thereof) to add support for a new feature, application or >>> facility. This memo provides guidelines for such situations in >>> standards documents. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>> >>> The IETF Secretariat >>> >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 3 August 2013 12:18:31 UTC