- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 23:05:45 -0500
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Henry, On 12/3/05, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk > wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Further to our discussions about xri and the general matter of new URI > schemes which overlap substantially with http: > > http://www.niso.org/news/releases/pr-InfoURI-11-05.html > > What do we have to do to get the IETF to at least give us a heads-up > when a decision like this is coming. . . ? I think there's enough overlap between tag@w3.org and uri@w3.org, that notification shouldn't be a problem in practice. Dan, Roy, Norm, and - I suspect - Tim, are on both. > Or perhaps this happened, either to the URI list or via the IETF > liaison, and W3C dropped the ball? Indeed I see an announcement of a > new draft from July 2004 on the URI list [1], but no followup at all > there :-(. I think the list was exhausted by then! Check the archives from October 2003, as it was pretty much all that was discussed; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Oct/index.html > Too late now. FWIW, had "info" been proposed under the new (approved) URI registration procedure[1], its registration may very well have been rejected. The new procedure requires that; "New URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad Internet community, beyond that available with already registered URI schemes" P.S. AFAIK, no application to register the "xri" scheme has been made yet, so we may soon find out how well that holds up in practice! [1] http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines/ Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Sunday, 4 December 2005 04:05:50 UTC