Re: [url] Requests for Feedback (was Feedback from TPAC)

On 12/15/2014 07:25 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> FWIW, I noticed that the WHATWG "living standard" is referenced later,
> but not described in the section about WHATWG.

Can I get you to explain a bit more about what you are looking for?

URL-LS is mentioned in the section about the WHATWG, and is described as 
focusing on what is important for browsers, currently lacking a 
registration procedure, lists what it is based on, and what it proposes 
to obsolete.

> #g
> --

- Sam Ruby

> On 15/12/2014 11:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 12/15/2014 02:14 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
>>> I’m happy that you did this. I'd been meaning to, but
>>> I was hoping for more feedback about the right direction.
>>> It's better, though, to have something to shoot at.
>>
>> I was hoping for more feedback too, but meanwhile I, too, feel that it
>> is better
>> to have something to shoot at.
>>
>>> I'd like to make a pass before it get submitted.
>>
>> Fair enough.
>>
>>> =====
>>> I've been thinking that it would be better to include
>>> the "plan" and not just the problem statement,
>>> since you want feedback on both.
>>>
>>> I mean something based on
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2014Nov/0000.html
>>>
>>> and subsequent planning on this list.
>>> Make that section 4.
>>
>> Wasn't clear to me that problem statements should also include proposed
>> solutions, but I agree that I want feedback on both.
>>
>> Done.
>>
>>> =======
>>> I’m reluctant to be listed first, ever. And it needs more
>>> work before I'd want it submitted with my name on it,
>>> though I'm willing to help. For now I'd just put me second.
>>
>> Done.
>>
>>> ====
>>> Nit: better section headings, e.g.,
>>>
>>> 1. Brief History of URL standards
>>> 2. Current Organizations and Specs in development
>>
>> Done.
>>
>>> ======
>>> 2. organizations: These need some introductions and
>>> hyperlinks
>>
>> I've added hyperlinks.  In this brief document, it is my hope that
>> this is
>> sufficient.
>>
>>> ======
>>> Problem statement: The main problem is conflicting
>>> specs that don't match each other and overlap.
>>> Maybe this should separate 'Problem Statement from
>>>   IETF point of view' from other problem
>>> statements.
>>
>> Added.
>>
>>> =====
>>> Security considerations: I think the main impact is when
>>> URLs work differently in different systems.
>>
>> Added.
>>
>>> =====
>>> I don't see why RFC 2119 is cited, there is no
>>> normative conformance.
>>
>> Removed.
>>
>>> ======
>>> You cite [kerwin-file-scheme] but it needs to be
>>> in the problem statement.
>>
>> This should be covered by the addition you proposed above.
>> Additionally, I've
>> now cited this work in the plan section.
>>
>>> I suppose each of these could be raised as issues.
>>
>> This is fine.  Keep them coming!
>>
>>> Larry
>>> --
>>> http://larry.masinter.net
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 4:06 PM
>>>> To: Mark Nottingham; Larry Masinter
>>>> Cc: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org; Philippe Le Hégaret; Wendy Seltzer
>>>> Subject: Re: [url] Requests for Feedback (was Feedback from TPAC)
>>>>
>>>> On 12/08/2014 05:29 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>>> Larry, are you saying you want to get this approved as Informational,
>>>> or that plus IETF Consensus?
>>>>
>>>> I've taken the liberty of adapting Larry's blog post to RFC format.  In
>>>> the process, I've lightly updated and added to it.  Still, the bulk of
>>>> the content remains Larry's, so the bulk of the credit goes to him.  As
>>>> to any errors I've introduced in the process (which is quite likely as
>>>> I'm not familiar with the template or relevant practices), the blame
>>>> goes to me.
>>>>
>>>> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.html
>>>> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.txt
>>>> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.xml
>>>>
>>>> For those inclined to do so, feel free to send pull requests or create
>>>> issues on the following:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/webspecs/url/blob/develop/docs/url-problem-
>>>> statement.xml
>>>>
>>>> Comments via email are also fine.
>>>>
>>>> As to Mark's question, I'm inclined to ask for "plus IETF Consensus".
>>>> That being said, I've been unable to find what this precisely entails.
>>>> If asking for this means that it might get pushback, I'm fine with
>>>> that;
>>>> the one thing I would not be fine with is it stalling.
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>
>>>> P.S.  Larry: if you have a problem with what I have done and wish to
>>>> have your name and/or content removed, simply say so, and I will make
>>>> the necessary changes.
>>>>
>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2014, at 5:30 am, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of the suggestions I favor:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Create and submit an Internet Draft which is the "Problem
>>>> Statement" For the "URL mess", which explains the problems we're
>>>> trying to solve, as well as at least an outline of a plan forward.
>>>> Then get it
>>>> approved as an Informational RFC. It is probably necessary to document
>>>> the rationale, anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm willing to help, or offer some text (from my "the URL mess" blog
>>>> post) or updating such a document.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't like this idea, make a better suggestion for getting the
>>>> feedback Sam is asking for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> http://larry.masinter.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 4:45 AM
>>>>>>> To: "Martin J. Dürst"; Mark Nottingham
>>>>>>> Cc: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org; Philippe Le Hégaret; Wendy Seltzer
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [url] Requests for Feedback (was Feedback from TPAC)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/07/2014 11:18 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2014/12/06 07:38, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2014 03:49 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you want a “yes, we’re aware of it” response, I think you’ve
>>>>>>>>>> already got it, but you’re more than welcome to ask for it in
>>>> official
>>>>>>>>>> form.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What I am trying to do is distinguish between:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) I've read the draft, I approve of it, and therefore I have no
>>>>>>>>> comments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2) I've not read the draft, and therefore I have no comments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think such statements are rather easy to make for individuals,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>> not
>>>>>>>> for IETF (nor for that matter for the W3C or even the WHATWG).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Despite the fact that there is no active WG within the IETF
>>>> working on
>>>>>>>>> this, I would have thought that this would be a topic of
>>>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>> interest to the broader IETF community.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is all true. The problem is that this interest is spread
>>>>>>>> out very
>>>>>>>> very thinly. Summing up every splitter of interest will add up to
>>>>>>>> significant interest, but the people who are actually interested
>>>> enough
>>>>>>>> to read the document and comment are few and far between.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've met in person with Area Directors.  I've asking for the
>>>>>>> W3C/IETF
>>>>>>> liaisons to make this happen.  I've outlined the beginnings of a
>>>> problem
>>>>>>> statement.  I've been very publicly working on a specification.
>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>> documented significant differences between implementations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there are people who want to help, I'm willing to work with them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The one thing I am not intending to do is to stop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,   Martin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>>>>>
>>
>

Received on Monday, 15 December 2014 12:54:03 UTC