- From: Nicolas Krebs <nicolas1.krebs3@netcourrier.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:35:59 +0100
- To: uri@w3.org
Frank Ellermann wrote:
>Nicolas Krebs wrote:
>
>> urn:ietf:rfc:5234 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5234
>
>Yes, STD 68 got its numbers about three weeks ago.
>Because the text-fragment-09 and mailto-bis-04 I-Ds
>are older they still reference RFC 4234.
>My copy of news-nntp-uri-09 references RFC 5234,
>if your copy references 4234 it's unauthorized ;-)
Sorry, my mistake. I did not noticed the change in -09.
But i have a question about
urn:ietf:id:draft-ellermann-news-nntp-uri-09 . Have you read
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg04556.html
| From: The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>
| Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:18:34 -0800 (PST)
and
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg50453.html
| From: Charles Lindsey <chl at clerew.man.ac.uk>
| Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:31:21 GMT
?
>> In urn:ietf:id:draft-duerst-mailto-bis-04 please
>> replace each "[RFCXXXX]" by "[I-D.ietf-eai-mailto]",
>> each "[RFCYYYY]" by "[I-D.ietf-eai-utf8headers]"
>
>Wait, you found that in draft-ietf-eai-mailto-00,
>this is NOT the same as I-D.duerst-mailto-bis-04.
Indeed. It's a typo of me (copy-paste is usefull, but you need to copy
the right piece of text), as you can see in the following/sequel text
in my message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2008Feb/0022.html
| and in section 8 "Normative References"
| http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eai-mailto-00#section-8
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>The EAI mailto-00 draft was posted close to the
>cutoff, various nits are already reported on the
>EAI list. The new eai-mailto draft references
>mailto-bis, that is as it should be.
>
> Frank
>
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 21:29:54 UTC