- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:40:49 +0200
- To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- CC: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, masinter@adobe.com, draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg@tools.ietf.org, public-iri@w3.org
On 2012-04-12 17:23, Michael[tm] Smith wrote: > Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 2012-04-12 17:17 +0200: > >> 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. > > That's not what I heard. What I heard is exactly what I wrote. The only > comment posted to the issue was one that said it was out of scope, and the > issue was closed as wontfix. As I understand it, that indicates the IRI WG > is not planning to take any further action on it, and that's something the > HTML WG should know. If the IRI WG decides to re-open the issue, then I can > communicate that back to the HTML WG. Well, I don't know what you heard, because I wasn't part of the conversation. I *do* continue to believe that assigning semantics to a scheme name prefix is a bad idea, and that the HTML WG needs to consult the IETF on this. I believe the current resolution in the IRI WG ticket is misleading, and that's why I sent the email above. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:41:29 UTC