- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 13:48:12 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
On 2014-12-19 13:08, Sam Ruby wrote: > What frustrates me is that we met, in person, face to face. You > proposed some specific actions whereby the IETF (where you are a member) > and the TAG (where you are a member) would either endorse or propose > changes to what I proposed. I took notes and published them promptly: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2014Nov/0000.html > > I've seen no follow through on what you personally proposed. I want to > know what it takes to get an endorsement from Mark Nottingham. Not a > thanks that I've picked up this work, an actual endorsement of URL > Living Standard and/or the URL W3C Working draft, as well as the stated > direction. > > In addition, let me now up the ante. You mentioned a W3C > recommendation. I have personally updated the document which is on the > W3C Rec track: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/url/ > > I have kept a working draft up to date: > > http://rawgit.com/w3ctag/url/develop/url.html > > Please tell me what it will take for me to formally propose that a > RFC3986bis be created. If necessary, I'll volunteer to be the author. > ... I believe a necessary step to get the IETF to agree to revise RFC 3986 would be a problem description; not about the things the spec doesn't say (such as handling broken URIs), but what actually is *wrong* with RFC 3986. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 12:48:56 UTC