- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:12:12 +0200
- To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- CC: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 2012-04-12 17:02, Michael[tm] Smith wrote: > I have had a discussion with the chairs of the IETF IRI WG regarding HTML > WG issue 189. A related IETF IRI WG ticket had opened for this issue, but a > determination was then made that the issue is out of scope for the IRI WG. > ... Citing <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/123>: > I'd like to say this is out of scope for the IRI working group. > > We shouldn't hold up putting RFC 4395bis to working group last call, because of the potential of some proposal being made here. Establishing a convention as proposed could be processed independently, and wouldn't invalidate anything currently in 4395bis. I agree that the work on RFC4395bis shouldn't be blocked by this issue. But that doesn't invalidate the point that assigning semantics to scheme prefixes shouldn't be done unilaterally by the HTML WG, and yes, I have a TODO to update my change proposal. > Based on that, my recommendation is that the HTML WG should proceed on > whatever the next steps are on this issue, without blocking on getting any > further consideration of it from the IRI WG. As a matter of fact, the IETF IRI WG hasn't been even *consulted* yet by us, so it would be kind of surprising to get an answer for a question that wasn't asked yet. The only reason I opened the ticket over in the IETF IRI WG was to make sure the issue is tracked. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:12:58 UTC