[Uri-review] Review request: widget URI scheme
Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> Thu, 25 February 2010 10:52 UTC
Return-Path: <robin@berjon.com>
X-Original-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2719928B797 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:52:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IpXQdnUbWWXF for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:52:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from poing.nachbaur.com (poing.nachbaur.com [78.46.41.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6166928C146 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:52:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from poing.nachbaur.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A98E3E823B; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:54:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.12] (mtl93-13-78-229-133-72.fbx.proxad.net [78.229.133.72]) (Authenticated sender: robin_berjon_com) by poing.nachbaur.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6E3E83E821C; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:54:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:54:09 +0100
Message-Id: <14E816D1-327A-4423-83C3-58C55DCCCC95@berjon.com>
To: uri-review@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
X-PMX-Version: 5.5.3.366731, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.0.366912, Antispam-Data: 2010.2.25.104540
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:42:33 -0800
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Subject: [Uri-review] Review request: widget URI scheme
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:55:13 -0000
Hi, on behalf of the W3C WebApps Working Group I would like to request review for the registration of the "widget" URI scheme. The filled out registration template can be found at: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/registration.txt And the specification at: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/ There is one specific aspect on which we would like to particularly solicit your guidance. While the fact that implementations are shipping presently has produced the need to define this URI scheme, we believe that we may update it at a later date to take into account use cases not yet addressed by our technology stack (the W3C Widgets family of specifications). As such, we would like to know if it is best registered as provisional (the scheme is intended to evolve) or permanent (the technology it is a part of is intended to become a permanent part of the landscape). We are happy with either option, we mostly ask because it is unclear to us from RFC4395 what the guiding principles should be in electing one over the other. Thanking you in advance for your review, -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
- [Uri-review] Review request: widget URI scheme Robin Berjon
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request: widget URI scheme Julian Reschke
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request: widget URI scheme Robin Berjon
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request: widget URI scheme Julian Reschke
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request: widget URI scheme Peter Saint-Andre