- From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
- Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 15:45:08 -0400
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- CC: uri@w3.org
Howdy,
A few reasons, including the fact that informational RFCs "don't
count" (except to marketroids who view all RFCs as standards, when
convenient).
I disagree that having a metadocument is inappropriate -- we need
one reference point for URIs, and as long as we continue to develop
the space by independant documentation (which does seem to be the
best way to to do it), the simplest, easiest to keep-up-to-date
path is a metaspec.
Leslie.
"Roy T. Fielding" wrote:
>
> Why are you doing this as a standard instead of an informational spec?
> The various specifications that are being referred to are not at
> the same level of standardization, so creating a meta-standard is
> not appropriate.
>
> ....Roy
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality with a delicate splash of the imaginary...
... or was that the other way around?"
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 2 September 2000 15:52:17 UTC