- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:17:00 +0200
- To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- CC: masinter@adobe.com, draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg@tools.ietf.org, public-iri@w3.org
On 2012-04-05 23:37, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 4/3/12 3:14 AM, iri issue tracker wrote: >> #123: coordinate URI/IRI scheme prefix discussion with W3C HTML WG >> >> Changes (by masinter@…): >> >> * status: new => closed >> * resolution: => wontfix >> >> >> Comment: >> >> I'd like to say this is out of scope for the IRI working group. >> >> We shouldn't hold up putting RFC 4395bis to working group last call, >> because of the potential of some proposal being made here. Establishing a >> convention as proposed could be processed independently, and wouldn't >> invalidate anything currently in 4395bis. > > Agreed. I disagree that it's out-of-scope. This WG defines the registration procedure, and if people overload the syntax with semantics, this indicates that they can't do what they want right now. (Whether this is a good idea in the first place is a separate discussion) I *agree* that RFC4395bis should not be blocked by this as we have no idea how long it'll take to settle this. I also note that Mike Smith just posted in HTML WG land: > I have had a discussion with the chairs of the IETF IRI WG regarding HTML > WG issue 189. A related IETF IRI WG ticket had opened for this issue, but a > determination was then made that the issue is out of scope for the IRI WG. > > Based on that, my recommendation is that the HTML WG should proceed on > whatever the next steps are on this issue, without blocking on getting any > further consideration of it from the IRI WG. (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0075.html>) That sounds a bit like what he heard is "the IRI WG does not care about this", which I believe would be very unfortunate. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:17:35 UTC