- From: by way of <ph@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 19:34:51 +0900
- 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