- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:43:31 -0700
- To: "'Paul Hoffman / IMC'" <phoffman@imc.org>, uri@w3.org
> Documents there was no discussion on, and we're probably done with: > draft-hoffman-gopher-uri-01.txt > draft-hoffman-prospero-uri-01.txt > draft-hoffman-telnet-uri-01.txt > draft-hoffman-wais-uri-01.txt I continue to think 'gopher', 'prospero' and 'wais' should be dropped, and that there is no reason to maintain them in standards track, that publishing new RFCs describing these is not a good use of IETF resources; unless the documents are published on April 1, the schemes don't belong in standards track. I think 'telnet' probably needs an update, but we haven't people just haven't looked at it. Perhaps a specific last call on it would finally solicit review. > I propose that, at the beginning of December, we compare the existing > "file" Internet Drafts and pick one, and be done with it. Sound > reasonable? I propose working harder to find someone willing to take on the work. I understand your reluctance and don't blame you for not wanting to do it, but I stand behind the belief that not having a recommended practice for 'file:' is harmful and that we can do better. I think we need to reach harder to get to the people responsible for current implementations of 'file:'. Again, this might take some time. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 00:43:46 UTC