W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2014

Re: file:///

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:58:48 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNALZqOTFsTA3dYoj24R6GtrJ9oEBxGOp=4L_g3zw3-3bg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, uri@w3.org
On 25 September 2014 18:54, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> I do notice that since the last post I saw
> from you on this, in 2013, you have asked people to discuss this on
> github.  Following the link in the I-D, I get 'The page cannot be
> displayed' but really, that is irrelevant for me, since if I am going to
> discuss it, I want it to be here on the apps list, not on yet another
> list (the uri list would be an alternative).
To date it's actually mostly been discussed in private conversation via
email. I recently did a major rewrite, so draft 12 is a bit skeletal, but I
was planning on bringing it back to uri@w3.org once I figured it could
stand up to a bit of serious scrutiny. Of course, it's a public document,
so if people want to chew it up right now they're more than welcome. If
there's a better place to discuss it, I can push out an update with a
better link.

Would anyone be upset if I said it should be discussed either on
apps-discuss@ietf.org or uri@w3.org ? And is there a preference for one
over the other?

> I do use file:/// most days of the week in the flavour used by IE and
> would be happy to work to see it standardised; which then requires a WG
> to show sufficient interest, or an AD to feel motivated to take it on
> (which you also know:-).
The more people who can contribute, the better. (...I think.) Especially
people who actually use the scheme. If, one day, we can get it pushed
through the process, that would be brilliant.

  Matthew Kerwin
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2014 09:59:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:17 UTC