Leslie Daigle wrote:
> I agree that there are issues in clarity of URIs and their
> documentation -- by this message, I hope you are implicitly
> suggesting you are ready to get back to the questions I asked you
> a couple of months ago, on the subject of "what needs to be done here".
In fairness to Leslie, she did ask me this directly, over a month ago, and clearly
I haven't been as responsive as I wish I could -- that is, if I new the answer; but
it would be pretentious of me to pretend that I do.
> But, I don't think this list is the place/this list membership wants to
> attempt to solve those problems.
I'm forwarding the posting to the W3C URI list and we can continue the discussion
there.
> > Note that Leslie (who is the expert on these matters) didn't say "I think it
> > means..." (which in itself would indicate confusion) but rather "I think they
> > think it means..." which, to me, is a disturbingly cryptic response (with
> > which Stu Weibel concurred).
>
> I interpreted the Roy's question as "what does the W3C think", ....
Ok, it hadn't occured to me that "they" meant W3C; from the context it seemed as
though "they" meant DC. So the suggestion is that the W3C is confused over what
URI means? I'll certainly go along with that!
>
> > I suggest that DC may
> > want to consider supporting the suggestion that W3C initiate a URI activity.
>
> It's the IETF that has produced the (standards and informational)
> documents that define these things and are evidently causing the
> confusion -- I think it's more effective to cause the activity
> to happen there (primarily clarification, IMHO).
I think it would be useful to have a discussion, on the W3C list, about where this
activity should occur.
--
Ray Denenberg
Library of Congress
202-707-5795
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|