13 Sep 1999 07:36
RE: Proposed amendment to language of draft-ietf-url-procedures
Ian King <iking <at> microsoft.com>
1999-09-13 05:36:48 GMT
1999-09-13 05:36:48 GMT
Then what do you suggest to provide collision management, identification and interoperability in URL schemes? I'd be thrilled if you have a viable alternative to offer. But a lot of very intelligent folks have discussed this matter for a long time, and this is what they came up with. I'd be delighted if we did not need process around this, and these matters could somehow "just work out". But the consensus is that this just is not the case, at least not today. If you feel you have a viable alternative, that would prevent namespace collision, encourage development of interoperable standards, and provide sensible management of this highly visible namespace -- I'm all ears. Ian King <iking <at> microsoft.com> Speech Product Group/Intelligent Interface Technologies MICROSOFT CORPORATION -----Original Message----- From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mohta <at> necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] Sent: Sunday, September 12, 1999 2:26 AM To: moore <at> cs.utk.edu Cc: mohta <at> necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp; moore <at> cs.utk.edu; Ian King; ietf-url <at> imc.org; urn-ietf <at> lists.internic.net; paf <at> swip.net; RPetke <at> wcom.net Subject: Re: Proposed amendment to language of draft-ietf-url-procedures Keith; > > Are you saying that IETF is infallible and has never published > > any bad ideas of its own? >(Continue reading)
RSS Feed