- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:33:07 +0900
- To: uri@w3.org
>X-Original-To: duerst@homer.w3.org >Delivered-To: duerst@homer.w3.org >X-From_: nobody@wiggum.w3.org Fri Oct 22 15:58:12 2004 >X-Authentication-Warning: grimsvotn.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE: pk owned >process doing -bs >X-Authentication-Warning: grimsvotn.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE: pk@localhost >didn't use HELO protocol >To: uri@w3.org >X-Organization: Uni Bielefeld, Technische Fakultaet >X-Phone: +49 521 106 2902 >Old-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:47:25 +0200 >From: Peter Koch <pk@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> >X-caa-id: 38540c841f026abffce8 >Sender: nobody <nobody@wiggum.w3.org> >X-Original-To: uri@w3.org >X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list >Subject: [Moderator Action] Re: Dropping 'gopher', 'wais', 'prospero' >X-Envelope-To: uri >Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:58:13 +0000 >X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on homer.w3.org >X-Spam-Level: >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.6 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham >version=2.64 > > > >John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote: > >> These are good arguments for making a gopher URI RFC and marking it >> Historic, but not for abandoning it altogether. The wais and prospero >> URIs, OTOH, never had significant implementation and can IMHO be >> allowed to languish in Obsolete status. > >the current track seems not to support this distinction: > >RFC 2026, 4.2.4 Historic > > A specification that has been superseded by a more recent > specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is > assigned to the "Historic" level. > >gopher: doesn't have a direct successor (http: doesn't really count) >and isn't as obsolete as wais: or prospero:. ``Historic'' status is even >less communicated than the standards track, so that might send the wrong >message. gopher: could be recycled as Proposed or even be advanced to >Draft since interoperable implementations are still (or: again) there. > >-Peter
Received on Monday, 25 October 2004 18:50:59 UTC