- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@apache.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 10:53:36 -0700
- To: hardie@oakthorn.com
- Cc: uri@w3.org, timbl@w3.org ('Tim Berners-Lee'), LMM@acm.org
My opinion is that only 1% of that work requires a normative change to the standard, and that is simply establishing a default encoding for on-the-wire URI (the one currently being used by most Web browsers). The rest is UI recommendations, which are being developed by the W3C. I do not believe in having two different definitions of the same protocol element floating around on the standards track. ....Roy On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 10:42 AM, Ted Hardie wrote: > The IRI work looks to be extensive enough to require its own > discussion and progress through the standards process; I don't see > that as something that would fit in an update for something recycling > at Draft standard. Or is there some (smaller)piece of it that you see > incorporating here prior to going through that process?
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 14:38:35 UTC