On 2012-03-27 22:14, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 03/27/2012 12:42 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> >>> Review of the following proposal: >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0272.html >>> >>> "the spec takes the position that registration of scheme name prefixes >>> is possible" >>> >>> Drop this. The current spec text presumes that describing a >>> convention is possible. It does not presume that IETF registration >>> of such a convention is possible. In fact, everyone seems to agree >>> that IETF does not provide such a mechanism. >> >> "web+ scheme prefix" is in the IANA registration section, so yes, it >> *does* take that position. > > We have an alternate change proposal that attempts to address this. Is > the alternate proposal one that you can live with, or does it have any > correctable problems which, if addressed, would result in something you > could support? The registration issue is just one part of the problem. The architecture issue (overloading scheme syntax with semantics) is the more serious problem. As far as I understand, it's now on the IETF/W3C liaison agenda: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2012Apr/0024.html> Maybe the issue should be put on hold until we get feedback. Best regards, JulianReceived on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 14:35:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:51 UTC