Re: HTML WG Action-46: javascript scheme

* Mark Baker wrote:
>Bjoern, if you could also update the draft to request provisional
>registration and use the template in sec 5.4 of RFC 4395, it would
>appreciated and add some notes about the aspects of section 2 which
>aren't being followed.  Also, if you have time, perhaps you could
>satisfy the SHOULD level requirement in section 3 about describing
>what requirements of section 2 aren't met and why.  I can help if you
>like.

It would be best if you could post your comments to the uri and/or
uri-review mailing list, as follow-up to either of my requests for
comment ,

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2006Nov/0010.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2006Oct/0070.html

The draft currently requests permanent registration and should be
meeting all requirements for that as far as they are applicable.

Using the template is not required or useful in a draft this short,
either the template would just contain pointers to other sections,
or the whole draft would be turned into one big template.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 17:26:35 UTC