- From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:24:27 -0500
- To: ext Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, W3C/IETF <w3c-policy@ietf.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Larry, On Jan 26, 2010, at 2:15 AM, ext Larry Masinter wrote: > I can't tell if you think: > > a) The current draft *does* meet the IETF criteria > b) The document *doesn't need* to meet the IETF criteria In [LM-18Dec2009] you asserted "the widget URI scheme definition proposed, even as updated in the latest editor's draft [sic see [ED]], does not meet at least two of the criteria of RFC 4395 for permanent URI scheme registration:" and quoted the following from RFC 4395 [RFC4395]: [[ New URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad Internet community, beyond that available with already registered URI schemes ]] Re your a) and b) questions above, I can't answer them because IMO the "IETF criteria" as cited above is too subjective. What does "clear utility" mean in this context and where is the measurement criteria? Where can we find an objective and measurable definition of "broad Internet community"? In particular, where can I find a list of the members of this community and is this "community" self-selected? -Art Barstow [LM-18Dec20009] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2009OctDec/1455.html [RFC4395] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395 [ED] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/
Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 17:25:14 UTC