Submit TV-URI work to IESG ? (was: Re: "lid" URLs)

From: Philipp Hoschka (ph@w3.org)
Date: Wed, Apr 19 2000

  • Next message: Jerding, Dean: "tv:"

    Message-ID: <38FD30D8.DB44CF7F@w3.org>
    Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:06:48 +0800
    From: Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>
    To: Dan Zigmond <djz@corp.webtv.net>
    CC: "'Larry Masinter'" <LM@att.com>, uri@w3.org, www-tv@w3.org
    Subject: Submit TV-URI work to IESG ? (was: Re: "lid" URLs)
    
    Dan,
    
    i think that at least the "tv:" scheme seems to be ready to be
    forwarded to the IESG for adoption - what do you think ? There
    was not much discussion last time you did an update, so maybe it's
    time to wrap this up.
    
    -Philipp
    
    Dan Zigmond a écrit :
    > 
    > Agreed.  We were a little careless in our terminology (as others also
    > pointed out), and I just haven't gotten around to revising the drafts.
    > 
    >         Dan
    > 
    > ---------------------------------------------------
    > Dan Zigmond
    > Senior Group Manager, Client Technologies
    > WebTV Networks, Inc.
    > djz@corp.webtv.net
    > ---------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Larry Masinter [mailto:LM@att.com]
    > Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 10:33 AM
    > To: uri@w3.org; www-tv@w3.org
    > Subject: "lid" URLs
    > 
    > (someone) wrote me:
    > 
    > > I've just noticed a couple of Internet drafts that propose and refer to a
    > > URI scheme called lid:
    > >
    > >    draft-blackketter-lid-00.txt
    > >    draft-finseth-isanlid-00.txt
    > >
    > > I have two thoughts:
    > >
    > > (a) these lid:'s look more like URNs to me
    > >
    > > (b) the lid draft claims that lid:'s are simulatneously URIs and URNs, but
    > > they don't conform to URN syntax (in not having a leading "urn:" or
    > > namespace identifier parts).
    > 
    > I don't have a problem with URL-schemes that have URN-like semantics,
    > since there are enough of them already (cid, news, etc.). I think the
    > wording (saying that lid URLs are URNs) probably needs to change, since
    > it just adds confusion.
    > 
    > Larry