W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2000

Submit TV-URI work to IESG ? (was: Re: "lid" URLs)

From: by way of <ph@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 19:34:51 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20000419193437.0351a220@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: uri@w3.org
Dan,

i think that at least the "tv:" scheme seems to be ready to be
forwarded to the IESG for adoption - what do you think ? There
was not much discussion last time you did an update, so maybe it's
time to wrap this up.

-Philipp

Dan Zigmond a 馗rit :
 >
 > Agreed.  We were a little careless in our terminology (as others also
 > pointed out), and I just haven't gotten around to revising the drafts.
 >
 >         Dan
 >
 > ---------------------------------------------------
 > Dan Zigmond
 > Senior Group Manager, Client Technologies
 > WebTV Networks, Inc.
 > djz@corp.webtv.net
 > ---------------------------------------------------
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Larry Masinter [mailto:LM@att.com]
 > Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 10:33 AM
 > To: uri@w3.org; www-tv@w3.org
 > Subject: "lid" URLs
 >
 > (someone) wrote me:
 >
 > > I've just noticed a couple of Internet drafts that propose and refer to a
 > > URI scheme called lid:
 > >
 > >    draft-blackketter-lid-00.txt
 > >    draft-finseth-isanlid-00.txt
 > >
 > > I have two thoughts:
 > >
 > > (a) these lid:'s look more like URNs to me
 > >
 > > (b) the lid draft claims that lid:'s are simulatneously URIs and URNs, but
 > > they don't conform to URN syntax (in not having a leading "urn:" or
 > > namespace identifier parts).
 >
 > I don't have a problem with URL-schemes that have URN-like semantics,
 > since there are enough of them already (cid, news, etc.). I think the
 > wording (saying that lid URLs are URNs) probably needs to change, since
 > it just adds confusion.
 >
 > Larry
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2000 06:36:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:01 UTC