- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 09:29:21 +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>, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>
On 2014-12-21 22:10, Sam Ruby wrote: > ... > I'll simply make the observation unless there is some movement at the > IETF that the risks will only increase over time. > > This is NOT an ultimatum. There isn't a a point at time where a > go/no-go decision needs to be made. But given the lack of demonstrable > progress in the last 90 or so days, I would suggest that there be a > cause for concern. > ... Sam, if you want to see something happen inside the IETF, the rifht thing to do is to start that work inside the IETF. And if you believe that something is incorrect in RFC 3986, the best way to make progress is to actually state what's wrong. And again, what's mostly interesting is not what RFC 3986 does *not* say (such as handling broken references from markup etc), but what it *does* say and gets wrong. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 22 December 2014 08:29:54 UTC