- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:53:59 -0500
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
Larry Masinter scripsit:
> I continue to be confused as to whether the IETF prefers "historic" or
> "historical" as the right word for cruft.
RFC 2026, section 4.2.4, paragraph 1 says:
# A specification that has been superseded by a more recent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. (Purists have suggested that the
# word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of
# "Historic" is historical.)
> Dan Connolly sent a pointer to what I think is intended to be a list
> of 'known URI schemes', but the web site isn't responding at the
> moment. I'm expecting we will want to populate the provisional
> registry quickly with all known schemes, and encourage the actual
> owners to ask to update them.
http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes is marked obsolete, but may still
have some interest.
--
John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
.e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
Please support Lojban! http://www.lojban.org
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 05:57:09 UTC