DanC to add Note Well notice to WebDAV and URI list
ACTION: [PENDING] DanC to look into adding "note well..." notice to webdav, uri lists [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/15-ietf-w3c-irc]
Leslie: Lisa provided a couple of documents WRT TAG work on URNs and registries
Lisa: Has anyone looked into where the TAG is at since they published?
Dan: It's actively in progress.
Lisa: Rec is not to use new schemes to create new URIs?
Leslie: Goal here is to figure out consequences for IETF work
Dan: The DIX work is still early on. I
made some comments, because they were using a new URI scheme.
... It died down on the side of not minting a new scheme.
... There's also an IETF RFC on registering a new scheme. We reviewed
that, and included stuff about reuse.
... Outstanding question of best practice WRT using URNs in XML
Namspaces
... IETF says do that, TAG draft says don't.
Ted: Is it too early to look at?
Dan: No. I'll send a pointer to the list.
Lisa: WebDAV mounting draft is probably doing the right thing; doesn't require browser changes. If you can't introduce a scheme, only other place to introduce is in a MIME type.
Lisa: Have started IETF Last Call; W3C is welcome to review (already forwarded to list)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reschke-webdav-mount-04.txt
Ted: There are three methods of extension
possible; new URI schemes, new methods, and new MIME types (when
extending HTTP).
... If we're not to be using new schemes (and we can probably agree
that using new schemes for things that use HTTP is a bad idea),
... And if we don't have any way to get new method support in clients,
then the media type is the only other option.
Dan: It seems like this is the least evil approach. It would be nice to remove the constraints.
Lisa: such as?
Dan: Browsers will dispatch on mime types
happily, but they throw some things away.
... Especially, they don't hand it the URI.
Mnot: RSS subscription is a good example of this.
Lisa: When you invent a new MIME type for this sort of thing, you have to include the URL. That's not always a good/easy thing to do.
Dan: The TAG has talked about getting this fixed once in a while.
Lisa: Microformats guys are looking at almost the same thing, except with link classes.
Dan: I don't see the same problems there; they seem to work OK with existing browsers.
Lisa: How much W3C involvement is there in Microformats?
Dan: I work with them pretty closely, personally.
Lisa: What if we wanted to define a class="webdav-share"?
Dan: That's an interesting idea.
Dan: That's a pretty straightforward mime type thing.
Lisa: No; that allows you to download a calendar, not mount a share.
Dan: Microformats is guerilla standards...
... There is the profile mechanism in HTML to distinguish things.
Lisa: uFormats will have a namespacing/extensibility problem if it takes off.
Ted: Next step is for Dan to send a copy of the draft; anyone can comment. Is there anything else?
Leslie: DIX and WARP
Lisa: Rather than have two competing BoFs
in Montreal, I've declared a combined BoF.
... Pete Resnick to chair.
... Related to W3C workshop a few months ago; e.g., Sam Hartman.
... W3C has focused on what browsers should do; Sam is focused on new
auth mechanism.
Dan: Doesn't smell like standards work
Ted: It does once you get past pairwise integration
Dan: Are we there yet?
Ted: Yes, to some degree; e.g., BREW
... Will try to get in touch with / coordinate with Dave Raggett.
Leslie: Bert Wijnen has handed off management of this mailing list to Loa Andersson. Any need to follow-up here??
Philippe: I don't have any news yet.
Dan: Does the new work list work for anything?
Leslie: It isn't a high-volume effort.
Dan: When standards groups start stuff, do they actually send something there?
Ted: We get stuff from OMA, PP, PP2, etc.
... But it often isn't timely from some parties.
Philippe: We have a conflict between timeliness and confidentiality.
Dan: Is OASIS expected to participate? Do they?
Leslie: Yes.
Philippe: W3C has been bad in contributing, because people aren't aware, they forget, etc. It's another step in the process.
Philippe: This RFC has been approved, but it doesn't have a number yet. When is it expected to become an RFC?
Ted: 3066 was a BCP; when the WG took on the task of revising it, they split it into two. The new registry is complete, but the definition of how matching works just went through LC now.
Ted: Assuming the IESG passes it, it would be August before the RFC Editor assigns a number. This could be delayed further if issues or appeals are raised. If you look at the RFC Editor Queue, you'll see that it's also BCP 47. The BCP number never changes. If you want to give it a stable reference, you can use the BCP number.