- From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:05:10 -0400
- To: public-iri@w3.org
Interestingly enough, you can drop the url1 for drafts that have an
obvious predecessor, and for drafts and rfc's you don't need to specify
a full url, giving this much shorter version:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hansen-iri-4395bis-irireg-00.txt
Tony
On 10/1/2010 2:31 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> And for everybody's reference, a diff is here:
> http://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4395.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hansen-iri-4395bis-irireg-00.txt
>
>
> I personally hope that this document will be a WG draft soon.
>
> Regards, Martin.
>
> On 2010/10/01 8:56, Tony Hansen wrote:
>> I'm sorry. That should have read:
>>
>> All of the above items are in response to the errata found at
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4395 and the issues in
>> the Trac issue tracker found at
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/report/1
>>
>> I hope that helps.
>>
>>
>> Tony Hansen
>>
>> On 9/30/2010 5:34 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>> * Tony Hansen wrote:
>>>> A draft for 4395bis was just posted, with the intent that this become
>>>> draft-ietf-iri-4395bis to fulfill that WG work item.
>>>>
>>>> Appendix A. Changes Since RFC 4395
>>>>
>>>> 1. Significant edits to be clear that a "URI scheme" and an "IRI
>>>> scheme" are the same thing.
>>>> 2. Added the "example:" URL Scheme.
>>>> 3. Allow for IRI-specific scheme registration.
>>>> 4. Clarify that the URI scheme registry is also the IRI scheme
>>>> registry.
>>>>
>>>> All of the above items are in response to the errata found at
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4395
>>> That just notes the incorrect BCP number?
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 1 October 2010 14:12:42 UTC