- From: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:18:54 -0500
- To: "'James M Snell'" <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>
Thank you for the explanation. Any thoughts on whether you'll go with Standards Track or Experimental RFC? Also, can you clarify what's required for "two demonstratably interoperable implementations?" -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/ -----Original Message----- From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:32 AM To: Mike Schinkel Cc: uri@w3.org Subject: Re: URI Template Status? The next step is to iterate through a few versions of the I-D then see if there is enough interest/consensus in pursuing either a Standards Track or Experimental RFC. For Standards Track, we need at least two demonstratably interoperable implementations and an obvious consensus that what we're putting forward for standardization is technically complete with no significant issues. Given that this is an individual submission (i.e. it's not the product of a working group) then the process for moving forward through the process is rather informal and moves along at whatever pace the authors want to move it along. - James
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 21:13:18 UTC