Re the URI scheme spec, there have been some followups on other
publicly archived mail lists. In chronological order:
1. Jan 25 from Larry Masinter:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Jan/0075.html
2. Jan 29 from Art Barstow:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Jan/0090.html
3. Jan 29 from Larry Masinter (also copied below):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2010Jan/0006.html
AFAICTell, no one ever responded to Robin's 15-June-2009 e-mail about
the thismessage: scheme:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/
0972.html
It doesn't seem like it would be appropriate for the spec to contain
text about its relationship to other schemes although including a
pointer to non-normative text about other related schemes would be
OK, e.g. what we created months ago:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetURIScheme
-Art Barstow
Begin forwarded message:
From: ext Larry Masinter <[email protected]>
Date: January 29, 2010 1:03:44 PM EST
To: "Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston)" <[email protected]>
Cc: Robin Berjon <[email protected]>, Doug Schepers
<[email protected]>, www-archive <[email protected]>, public-ietf-
w3c <[email protected]>, Graham Klyne <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [widgets] Draft Minutes for 21 January 2010 voice
conference
(moving to public w3c/ietf list, not administrative one)
With regard to comments on the "widget:" URI scheme.
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?
These are great questions. I think the guidelines within the
IETF (e.g., http://www.ietf.org/tao.html) use the word
"community" without defining it precisely. I suppose the
"community" is self-selected only in the sense that "anyone
who posts on an IETF mailing list" should be given a voice.
And of course "clear" and "utility" are subjective enough; I suppose
when we wrote that in the URI guidelines we imagined that this
wouldn't be hard actually be hard to do! I mean, it was my opinion
that the registration document doesn't show why
"widget://<garbage>/stuff" is more useful than "thismessage:/stuff"
since <garbage> isn't defined in the document.
If the document explained how it was useful (you know, like
even gave a hint of a use case), then the utility would
likely be clearer.
If there are a lot of people who think something isn't
"clear", clarifying the document will improve the chances
that more people will think it is clear, enough to believe
that the "community" generally thinks it is clear.
I gave my opinion. I'm surprised you can't just try a little
harder to clarify things, rather than try to formally ask
for a precise definition of "clear utility".
The "measurement criteria" aren't defined, but the process is.
The process is "expert review"; and if the "expert" wants, the
expert can call for "IETF review" and "IESG decision".
Anyway, in this process, I'm not a gatekeeper; I *do*
think the IETF process should be followed and the criteria
for new URI schemes met, and I don't think you have to
work so hard to do that.
I mean, if you really can't easily come up with a use
case where you can use widget: and you couldn't use
thismessage:, and put that use case in the document,
where's the "clear utility"?
Larry
