- From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:10:03 -0000
- To: URI <uri@w3.org>
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:41:14 -0000, Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote: > Charles Lindsey wrote: > >> There has been (one-sided) discussion of it on the ietf-nntp list > > Yes, a bunch of proposals to overrule STD 66 already discussed here > a year ago. Nothing contrary to STD 66 that I am aware of. > | we came to what seemed to me to be a policy question of whether > | URI schemes are better off defining all of the options one might > | want to use [...] or to intentionally limit the syntax to things > | that can be trusted to be implemented by most all interpreters. > <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/1182> (2007-09-21) A reasonable assumption is that what people eventually implement (which currently varies widely in the absence of adequate standards) will be what the NNTP standard [RFC 3977] now requires (which again is much cleaner that the jumbled selection of features in [RFC977]). > >> If it goes to IETF Last Call in its present state, I shall object >> vigorously. > > Maybe that will help to get new opinions. There weren't that many > opinions wrt "wildmat" URIs (four, IIRC). Indeed, which is why it needs to be discussed in a forum (the ietf-nntp list - http://lists.eyrie.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf- nntp) where one can expect the NNTP experts to be found. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 14:10:27 UTC