Re: [iri] #123: coordinate URI/IRI scheme prefix discussion with W3C HTML WG

It sounds like there was not adequate discussion about the resolution of
ticket #123 within the IRI WG, and we still need to reach consensus
about its fate.

There's obviously agreement that 4395bis should not be blocked waiting
on a proposal that handles the new convention.  But as Larry states in
his comment:

"Establishing a convention as proposed could be processed independently,
and wouldn't invalidate anything currently in 4395bis."

That sounds like the part still facing IRI WG disagreement.  What's the
problem with this position and how do we proceed?

Best regards,
Chris Weber


On 4/12/2012 8:40 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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 20:41:10 UTC