W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2010

[widgets] follow-ups on the URI scheme spec

From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:00:11 -0500
Message-Id: <8C30CE12-7270-4F72-B1FC-792A2A3835B5@nokia.com>
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:


2. Jan 29 from Art Barstow:


3. Jan 29 from Larry Masinter (also copied below):


AFAICTell, no one ever responded to Robin's 15-June-2009 e-mail about  
the thismessage: scheme:


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:


-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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:04 UTC