- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:12:38 +0900
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, uri-review@ietf.org
Actually, I think discussion about specific new URI schemes, in particular if intended to lead to a registration, should go to uri-review@ietf.org. uri@w3.org is more appropriate for discussion of URIs in general. Regards, Martin. P.S.: Please try to reduce the cc list when you reply to this thread. On 2009/03/30 3:05, Larry Masinter wrote: > I replied on this topic but (alas) changed the subject line: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Mar/0105.html. > I'd propose moving discussions about specific new URI schemes > to uri@w3.org. > > If there's a TAG issue, it would be a review of RFC 4395. > New URI schemes require "Demonstratable, New, Long-Lived Utility", > is there anything else that needs to be said? > > Larry -- #-# Martin J.Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 02:13:44 UTC