- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:08:47 +0200
- To: Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>
- CC: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, 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 22:40, Chris Weber wrote: > 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. Actually, it was entered as a "task", and as far as I recall I was told to enter it during the WG meeting so we can track what's going on. > 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 is true. But I would think that that convention should be specified within the IETF; after all, assigning semantics to name prefixes doesn't scale, so it needs to be done with care. > That sounds like the part still facing IRI WG disagreement. What's the > problem with this position and how do we proceed? My goal was to find a venue for a discussion about this, instead of the HTML spec just making it a fait accompli. The venue doesn't necessarily need to be the IRI WG, it also could be the Apps Area WG, or another place in the IETF. Or maybe even the W3C TAG; it just needs wider review than the HTML WG; thus I think the IRI chairs, the area directors, and the two liaisons should come up with a plan :-) Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 21:09:21 UTC