- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:56:35 +0000
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
I think it would be helpful to update the 'problem statement' at a minimum to take into account all of the feedback received so far, on: * IETF-W3C coordination http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/ * apps area https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/maillist.html * a few messages on the W3C TAG list ... when there is some disagreement, to record both sides. To move from "make a plan" to enumerate alternative plans as well as some of the evaluation criteria for choosing among them. (We should add a README.md in the 'docs' subdirectory as well as a note in the Contents section of the top level README.md pointing out the internet draft and the venue of discussion.) What about a BOF at next IETF to have a focused discussion of at least those who go to IETF meetings? I think it would be useful, since we're trying to get people together. I don't think we can or should try to avoid the URN mess while we're at it. I think we need to look again at the IDNA documents which DO contain advice for handling non-ascii hostnames in any host name slot, not just between initial // and first /. I don't think apps area should take up kerwin-file-scheme as an independent work item, not because the work isn't important but because apps-discuss is too congested to manage the discussion (no responses to Dec 9 https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg13462.html ). In general, APPSAWG shouldn't take up URL-scheme permanent registrations? Or should it? Should this be addressed in the scheme registration BCP? Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Saturday, 20 December 2014 18:57:13 UTC