http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0 now redirects to the draft-12 spec. When the rfc is minted, it will redirect to the rfc.
- James Julian Reschke wrote: > > Robert Sayre schrieb: >> ... >> 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? >> ... > > Although I share Robert's concerns about how this spec became a Proposed > Standard, I really have trouble to see the issue here. As a matter of > fact, I'm using a purl.org URL in one of my (non-Atom related) drafts as > well. > > What we're talking about here is not change control over the namespace > or the namespace name! It's about what happens if an HTTP client > dereferences that URL, which is irrelevant for the purpose of XML > namespaces. My (and I assume also James') assumption is that once the > specification is out, the purl.org HTTP URL will be reconfigured so that > it redirects to a URL identifying the actual RFC (preferably to readable > HTML :-). > > All of this is only necessary because the IETF insists in not minting > HTTP URLs themselves. I think the argument is that they can become > unstable. Of course that depends on the organization minting them and > maintaining the servers, not the actual type of URI... (note that even > the BCP for usage of XML in IETF specs -- RFC3470 -- mentions that it > would be good if the IETF would allow URLs from www.ietf.org for this > purpose). > > Best regards, Julian > >
