W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2005

Re: New URI registration draft; significant changed

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
Message-ID: <20050222055359.GK22906@ccil.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#   A specification that has been superseded by a more recent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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC