Re: Protocol Action: 'Atom Threading Extensions' to Proposed Standard
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. 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. A purl namespace in and by itself isn't any better or worse than a W3C namespace. Regards,Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Durst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Protocol Action: 'Atom Threading Extensions' to Proposed Standard
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
Re: Protocol Action: 'Atom Threading Extensions' to Proposed Standard
All I need to know is who to transfer it to. - James Martin Duerst 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. 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. A purl namespace in and by itself isn't any better or worse than a W3C namespace. Regards,Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Durst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
