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

On 15/12/2014 12:53, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 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?

It was just an editorial thing... I thought it might help if the WHATWG "living 
standard" phrase and idea was given a sentence or two of explanation in the 
section about the WHATWG specification.

Specifically, that it is not intended to be a static specification, but rather 
to reflect the actual state of what browsers are doing (if indeed that is right 
- not being a browser implementer, I don't actually track the WHATWG work).

#g
--


> 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 14:49:34 UTC