Larry,
On Jan 26, 2010, at 2:15 AM, ext Larry Masinter wrote:
I can't tell if you think:
a) The current draft *does* meet the IETF criteria
b) The document *doesn't need* to meet the IETF criteria
In [LM-18Dec2009] you asserted "the widget URI scheme definition
proposed, even as updated in the latest editor's draft [sic see
[ED]], does not meet at least two of the criteria of RFC 4395 for
permanent URI scheme registration:" and quoted the following from RFC
4395 [RFC4395]:
[[
New URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad Internet
community, beyond that available with already registered URI schemes
]]
Re your a) and b) questions above, I can't answer them because IMO
the "IETF criteria" as cited above is too subjective.
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?
-Art Barstow
[LM-18Dec20009] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/1455.html
[RFC4395] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395
[ED] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/
