- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:48:53 -0700
- To: "'John Cowan'" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, "'Paul Hoffman / IMC'" <phoffman@imc.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
I'm thinking that we should be thinking of 'Draft Standard' status for these revised URI documents; RFC 1738 was Proposed Standard, and we're either progressing them or dropping them. It sounds like there are multiple independent implementations of the Proposed Standard, even though there are widely used implementations that differ. But there's no strong technical reason to chose one behavior over another. The Proposed Standard behavior is more general, since there is a way (using %2F) to get the "start at top level" behavior if wanted. So I take back my previous suggestion (which was just focused on the wording, not the content). Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 19:49:00 UTC