Re: New URI registration draft; significant changed

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#   A specification that has been superseded by a more recent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. is marked obsolete, but may still
have some interest.

John Cowan                              <>  
                .e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
                Please support Lojban!

Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 05:57:09 UTC