- From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:42:27 -0400
- To: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>, "'Tim Kindberg'" <timothy@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <hardie@qualcomm.com>
- Cc: "'sandro hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'tim Kindberg'" <timothy@hpl.hp.com>, <agenda@ietf.org>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, <uri@w3.org>
From: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org> > > Could you clarify the meaning of "problematic" -- for whom: the > > registrants experiencing the IETF's processes, or the IETF, > > the W3C, or a combination of those? Will 'tag' be included? > > My goal was to have an open discussion about why some > schemes seemed to be controversial or difficult, > and what the nature of the problems might be. I would > hope to avoid any significant discussion of any individual > scheme, except perhaps as an example. Without discussing specific schemes in detail, could you at least list those that are "problematic"? I assume that if "problematic schemes" are on the agenda then someone must be able to list them. It would even be better if there could be a short summary of the problem for each! And more generally, I think I speak for a number of people in suggesting that it would be very helpful to have some "official" list of pending/proposed uri schemes (with a status for each), just as there is a current "Official IANA Registry of URI Schemes" at http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes. I won't be at the meeting nor will any of my colleagues as far as I know, but perhaps you could discuss this? Thanks. --Ray
Received on Friday, 23 July 2004 17:02:32 UTC