W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > October to December 2004

RE: Use of "assign" for URI -> resource

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:34:49 -0500
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: 'Stuart Williams' <skw@hp.com>, public-webarch-comments@w3.org, Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>, 'Paul Hoffman / IMC' <phoffman@imc.org>
Message-Id: <1097868888.30433.533.camel@dirk>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:55:24 UTC