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

RE: Proposed Status Categories for URI Scheme registry

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:03:16 -0800
To: "'Weibel,Stu'" <weibel@oclc.org>, uri@w3.org
Message-id: <0IAU00AVZD9GL1@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:08 UTC