W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > September 2000

Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-daigle-uri-std-00.txt

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 23:24:05 -0400
Message-Id: <200009060309.XAA376833@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: xml-uri@w3.org
There is a list <uri@w3.org> where these things do get discussed.  While
the traffic is only sporadic, most of the principal players do try to make
sure that issues get aired there.  

As you will see, this draft has not gone without comment
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/>.

Al

At 02:00 PM 2000-09-05 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>At 06:48 PM 9/5/00 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>At 12:21 PM 9/5/00 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>>>This appears to be just an overview of the various URI RFC documents, but
>>>is there an IETF activity working on updating RFC 2396?
>>
>>Not that I know of.
>
>I'd suggest that a clarification/revision of RFC2396 would be a good idea
>_prior to_ the W3C taking up any general consideration of how XML and URIs
>fit together.
>
>I'd like to think that a few of the past 1700 messages could have been
>avoided if RFC2396 was a tighter and more comprehensive document.
>
>>For many IETFers, I think an overview like this is quite appropriate and 
>>helpful.
>
>Agreed, but I don't think it helps substantially with the kinds of issues
>that have been repeatedly raised on this list.  
>
>Comparison of URIs is only the beginning, and I note that this draft
>doesn't refer to either Henrik Frystyk Nielsen's favorite RFC (2616) or
>Larry Masinter's favorite (2557).
>
>
>Simon St.Laurent
>XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
>XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
>http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
> 
Received on Tuesday, 5 September 2000 23:08:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 12 April 2005 12:17:25 GMT