On 7/11/06, Martin Duerst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 10:43 06/07/10, Robert Sayre wrote:
>Hi Lisa,
>
>Thanks for the clarification. You may have missed another question I
>recently asked, so I'll repeat it here. I am concerned that purl.org
>lists the document author as the owner of the namespace URI, and I
>wonder how the IESG came to the conclusion that the namespace is not a
>problem. I see Sam Hartman raised the issue. What was the resolution?
>Could the draft advance to Draft- or Full-Standard in that namespace?
I looked at that namespace shortly.
Thanks, but I don't see how you would be able to answer any of the
questions I asked above.
It seems that it would be easy
to change the owners to make clear that this is owned by the IETF.
This can be done whenever it's needed.
Actually, mnot delegates that path. Can he take it away? He's warned
us about the very same thing wrt to Atom 0.3.
A purl namespace in and
by itself isn't any better or worse than a W3C namespace.
I don't see any factual basis for that statement. For instance, the
IETF has a liason relationship with W3C.
--
Robert Sayre
