- From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:00:11 -0500
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Re the URI scheme spec, there have been some followups on other publicly archived mail lists. In chronological order: 1. Jan 25 from Larry Masinter: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Jan/0075.html 2. Jan 29 from Art Barstow: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Jan/0090.html 3. Jan 29 from Larry Masinter (also copied below): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2010Jan/0006.html AFAICTell, no one ever responded to Robin's 15-June-2009 e-mail about the thismessage: scheme: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/ 0972.html It doesn't seem like it would be appropriate for the spec to contain text about its relationship to other schemes although including a pointer to non-normative text about other related schemes would be OK, e.g. what we created months ago: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetURIScheme -Art Barstow Begin forwarded message: > From: ext Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> > Date: January 29, 2010 1:03:44 PM EST > To: "Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston)" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com> > Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Doug Schepers > <schepers@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, public-ietf- > w3c <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> > Subject: RE: [widgets] Draft Minutes for 21 January 2010 voice > conference > > (moving to public w3c/ietf list, not administrative one) > > With regard to comments on the "widget:" URI scheme. > >> What does "clear utility" mean in this context and where is the >> measurement criteria? > >> Where can we find an objective and measurable definition of "broad >> Internet community"? In particular, where can I find a list of the >> members of this community and is this "community" self-selected? > > These are great questions. I think the guidelines within the > IETF (e.g., http://www.ietf.org/tao.html) use the word > "community" without defining it precisely. I suppose the > "community" is self-selected only in the sense that "anyone > who posts on an IETF mailing list" should be given a voice. > > And of course "clear" and "utility" are subjective enough; I suppose > when we wrote that in the URI guidelines we imagined that this > wouldn't be hard actually be hard to do! I mean, it was my opinion > that the registration document doesn't show why > "widget://<garbage>/stuff" is more useful than "thismessage:/stuff" > since <garbage> isn't defined in the document. > > If the document explained how it was useful (you know, like > even gave a hint of a use case), then the utility would > likely be clearer. > > If there are a lot of people who think something isn't > "clear", clarifying the document will improve the chances > that more people will think it is clear, enough to believe > that the "community" generally thinks it is clear. > > I gave my opinion. I'm surprised you can't just try a little > harder to clarify things, rather than try to formally ask > for a precise definition of "clear utility". > > The "measurement criteria" aren't defined, but the process is. > The process is "expert review"; and if the "expert" wants, the > expert can call for "IETF review" and "IESG decision". > > Anyway, in this process, I'm not a gatekeeper; I *do* > think the IETF process should be followed and the criteria > for new URI schemes met, and I don't think you have to > work so hard to do that. > > I mean, if you really can't easily come up with a use > case where you can use widget: and you couldn't use > thismessage:, and put that use case in the document, > where's the "clear utility"? > > Larry > > >
Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 20:00:55 UTC