- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:03:16 -0800
- To: "'Weibel,Stu'" <weibel@oclc.org>, uri@w3.org
It might have gotten lost in the point-by-point analysis, so let me summarize: I think that your proposal is basically to take hansen-permanent and split it into weibel-permanent and weibel-provisional, and map hansen-provisional to weibel-vernacular. And I think that the split between weibel-permanent and weibel-provisional isn't necessary; if URI schemes are documented by RFCs, then the RFCs that describe them can go through standards track (or not) as is appropriate or called for. Right now, we have one level, and it's not enough, because we made that level hard to get into. But I don't think we need to go to three levels, when two will do: one that has a review and one that doesn't. If the registry contains a pointer to a document that describes the registered entry, then the status of the target itself can give much more interesting and useful information than having additional levels. But two levels are important, because it separates out the "never passed review" schemes to keep the registry of approved schemes relatively clean. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Monday, 24 January 2005 22:03:22 UTC