Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs

Keith Moore (moore@cs.utk.edu)
Sun, 26 Oct 1997 16:57:59 -0500


Message-Id: <199710262158.QAA22733@spot.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: michaelm@rwhois.net
cc: moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore), masinter@parc.xerox.com,
Subject: Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 26 Oct 1997 16:30:57 EST."
             <199710262130.QAA12685@bailey.dscga.com> 
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 16:57:59 -0500

> I think Dan's other suggestion was:
> 
> d) let the IETF define those things and then let the W3C cite
> those RFCs it thinks are appropriate to what the W3C wants to do.

URL and URN are already defined.  If Dan wants to write up
a document defining URI and ask IETF to publish it as an
RFC, he's welcome to do so.  But even under ideal 
circumstances, this will take at least a month...perhaps
much longer.

My personal opinion is that it's not worth a month or more's 
delay to define a new term in an RFC, when the HTML spec can be 
made reasonably clear and precise without doing so.   Will the
delay have any tangible benefits for the end-user?

Being on the IESG has made me sensitive to delays...it's amazing
how many documents sit around for weeks or months for reasons
that have nothing to do with either the technical description 
of the protocol or the recommendations for use of that protocol.

So my mantra has become "get things out the door so people can use them"

Keith