On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 11:59, Larry Masinter wrote: > The web architecture document is authored by the TAG, > and is a conceptual framework that the TAG offers to the > rest of the world. I was hoping to improve the explanatory > framework with wording I thought would result in less > confusion. I can 'live with' whatever wording you choose, > but I do have a request: > > In the IETF, we have started some efforts to revise > the guidelines for new URI schemes and the process > for registering them (RFCs 2717 and 2718). [1] It is > in the context of describing what makes a "good" > scheme definition that the TAG's description of > architecture of URIs causes difficulty, and taking > a more operational approach would be helpful. > > Could the TAG review these documents and consider how > the advice about URI ownership affects the advice? I think I can arrange for that; Should we be looking at revised drafts, or just the RFCs? http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2717.html Nov 1999 http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2718.html Nov 1999 Is a review in the next 2 months sufficiently soon? > What advice, if any, would the TAG give about "ownership" > in URI scheme definitions? > > Please include Tony Hansen and Paul Hoffman in > discussions about RFC 2717 & 2718 updates. > > Larry > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004Aug/0007.html -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 19:34:02 UTC