Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue?

Martin J. Duerst (mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch)
Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:53:53 +0100 (MET)


Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:53:53 +0100 (MET)
From: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue?
In-Reply-To: <97Feb3.082628pdt."241"@palimpsest.parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95q.970203203838.245S-100000@enoshima>

First a small list-procedural comment: The original post
should have gone to the urL list, and not the urI list.

On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Larry Masinter wrote:

[about ; in relative URLs]

> This is quite attractive, and is important for some schemes.  No one
> seems to implement this currently, though, so introducing it at this
> point seems like we would at least have to start over at "Proposed
> Standard", and should only do so if the consensus of the community is
> that this is the right thing to do.

Procedural standards nonewithstanding, have problems with the
position that a document has to restart, as a whole, from
Proposed just because some valuable stuff was added, or some
necessary corrections were made. There should be a way to have
a document describing the current consensus, with a section at
the end saying that overall, it is in Status X, but sections A,
B, and C are in status Y. The document as a whole might then be
in status X(-). As there seems to be no such thing, maybe we
should create it!

On the other side, I also have problems with people that think that
getting to the next level, in and by itself, is an achievement.
Arguments about "advancing one level" must not be used to fight
or kill necessary or very valuable improvements or changes.

So let's take the matter itself first, and procedural issues
second. Procedural arguments in many cases (probably not here)
are a sign of opposition without good arguments.


Regards,	Martin.