- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 20:35:28 +0900
- To: reagle@w3.org, dee3@torque.pothole.com
- Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
Hello Joseph, Sorry for my delay. I removed the I18N IG from the cc. After our discussion yesterday, I only found one point left. See below. At 17:26 01/12/12 -0500, Joseph Reagle wrote: >Martin, > >You've sent excellent feedback as always! I'm going to respond to your >comments in two parts non-I18N and I18N. This is the non-I18N bit. > >[Resulting Document > http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Drafts/xmlenc-core/ > $Revision: 1.89 $ on $Date: 2001/12/12 22:22:54 $ GMT >] > > Small points: > > - Citing the obsolete RFC 1738 will confuse many people. > >We also cite URI/URN, and I don't think any draft has superceded RFC1738 in >whole. What parts of RFC 1738 do you think are not covered in RFC 2396? It could be that there are some individual URI schemes described in RFC 1738 that haven't been described yet in any new RFC, but you don't need a reference to particular URI schemes. Regards, Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2002 12:40:06 UTC