[iri] #123: coordinate URI/IRI scheme prefix discussion with W3C HTML WG

[iri issue tracker]

#123: coordinate URI/IRI scheme prefix discussion with W3C HTML WG

Opening a ticket to this is tracked over in IETF land:

See https://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/189

Summary: <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#web-scheme-prefix>
introduces a naming convention for URI schemes.

So far, the HTNL WG hasn't officially contacted this WG, but it would be
good if we had an agreed-upon answer to this once it comes up.
--
-----------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg@…
julian.reschke@… | Status: new
Type: task | Milestone:
Priority: major | Version:
Component: 4395bis-irireg | Keywords:
Severity: Active WG |
Document |
-----------------------------+---------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/123>
iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>

[iri issue tracker]

#123: coordinate URI/IRI scheme prefix discussion with W3C HTML WG

Changes (by masinter@…):

* status: new => closed
* resolution: => wontfix


Comment:

I'd like to say this is out of scope for the IRI working group.

We shouldn't hold up putting RFC 4395bis to working group last call,
because of the potential of some proposal being made here. Establishing a
convention as proposed could be processed independently, and wouldn't
invalidate anything currently in 4395bis.
--
----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg@…
julian.reschke@… | Status: closed
Type: task | Milestone:
Priority: major | Version:
Component: 4395bis-irireg | Resolution: wontfix
Severity: Active WG |
Document |
Keywords: |
----------------------------+----------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/123#comment:1>
iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Post by iri issue tracker
#123: coordinate URI/IRI scheme prefix discussion with W3C HTML WG
* status: new => closed
* resolution: => wontfix
I'd like to say this is out of scope for the IRI working group.
We shouldn't hold up putting RFC 4395bis to working group last call,
because of the potential of some proposal being made here. Establishing a
convention as proposed could be processed independently, and wouldn't
invalidate anything currently in 4395bis.

Agreed.

Peter

[Julian Reschke]

Post by Peter Saint-Andre

Post by iri issue tracker
#123: coordinate URI/IRI scheme prefix discussion with W3C HTML WG
* status: new => closed
* resolution: => wontfix
I'd like to say this is out of scope for the IRI working group.
We shouldn't hold up putting RFC 4395bis to working group last call,
because of the potential of some proposal being made here. Establishing a
convention as proposed could be processed independently, and wouldn't
invalidate anything currently in 4395bis.

Agreed.

I disagree that it's out-of-scope. This WG defines the registration
procedure, and if people overload the syntax with semantics, this
indicates that they can't do what they want right now.

(Whether this is a good idea in the first place is a separate discussion)

I *agree* that RFC4395bis should not be blocked by this as we have no
idea how long it'll take to settle this.

Post by Peter Saint-Andre
I have had a discussion with the chairs of the IETF IRI WG regarding HTML
WG issue 189. A related IETF IRI WG ticket had opened for this issue, but a
determination was then made that the issue is out of scope for the IRI WG.
Based on that, my recommendation is that the HTML WG should proceed on
whatever the next steps are on this issue, without blocking on getting any
further consideration of it from the IRI WG.

(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0075.html>)

That sounds a bit like what he heard is "the IRI WG does not care about
this", which I believe would be very unfortunate.

Best regards, Julian

[Michael[tm] Smith]

Post by Julian Reschke

Post by Peter Saint-Andre
I have had a discussion with the chairs of the IETF IRI WG regarding HTML
WG issue 189. A related IETF IRI WG ticket had opened for this issue, but a
determination was then made that the issue is out of scope for the IRI WG.
Based on that, my recommendation is that the HTML WG should proceed on
whatever the next steps are on this issue, without blocking on getting any
further consideration of it from the IRI WG.

(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0075.html>)
That sounds a bit like what he heard is "the IRI WG does not care about
this", which I believe would be very unfortunate.

That's not what I heard. What I heard is exactly what I wrote. The only
comment posted to the issue was one that said it was out of scope, and the
issue was closed as wontfix. As I understand it, that indicates the IRI WG
is not planning to take any further action on it, and that's something the
HTML WG should know. If the IRI WG decides to re-open the issue, then I can
communicate that back to the HTML WG.

--Mike

[Julian Reschke]

Post by Michael[tm] Smith

Post by Julian Reschke

Post by Peter Saint-Andre
I have had a discussion with the chairs of the IETF IRI WG regarding HTML
WG issue 189. A related IETF IRI WG ticket had opened for this issue, but a
determination was then made that the issue is out of scope for the IRI WG.
Based on that, my recommendation is that the HTML WG should proceed on
whatever the next steps are on this issue, without blocking on getting any
further consideration of it from the IRI WG.

(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0075.html>)
That sounds a bit like what he heard is "the IRI WG does not care about
this", which I believe would be very unfortunate.

That's not what I heard. What I heard is exactly what I wrote. The only
comment posted to the issue was one that said it was out of scope, and the
issue was closed as wontfix. As I understand it, that indicates the IRI WG
is not planning to take any further action on it, and that's something the
HTML WG should know. If the IRI WG decides to re-open the issue, then I can
communicate that back to the HTML WG.

Well, I don't know what you heard, because I wasn't part of the
conversation.

I *do* continue to believe that assigning semantics to a scheme name
prefix is a bad idea, and that the HTML WG needs to consult the IETF on
this.

I believe the current resolution in the IRI WG ticket is misleading, and
that's why I sent the email above.

Best regards, Julian

[Chris Weber]

It sounds like there was not adequate discussion about the resolution of
ticket #123 within the IRI WG, and we still need to reach consensus
about its fate.

There's obviously agreement that 4395bis should not be blocked waiting
on a proposal that handles the new convention. But as Larry states in
his comment:

"Establishing a convention as proposed could be processed independently,
and wouldn't invalidate anything currently in 4395bis."

That sounds like the part still facing IRI WG disagreement. What's the
problem with this position and how do we proceed?

Best regards,
Chris Weber

Post by Julian Reschke

Post by Michael[tm] Smith

Post by Julian Reschke

Post by Peter Saint-Andre
I have had a discussion with the chairs of the IETF IRI WG
regarding HTML
WG issue 189. A related IETF IRI WG ticket had opened for this issue, but a
determination was then made that the issue is out of scope for the IRI WG.
Based on that, my recommendation is that the HTML WG should proceed on
whatever the next steps are on this issue, without blocking on getting any
further consideration of it from the IRI WG.

(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0075.html>)
That sounds a bit like what he heard is "the IRI WG does not care about
this", which I believe would be very unfortunate.

That's not what I heard. What I heard is exactly what I wrote. The only
comment posted to the issue was one that said it was out of scope, and the
issue was closed as wontfix. As I understand it, that indicates the IRI WG
is not planning to take any further action on it, and that's
something the
HTML WG should know. If the IRI WG decides to re-open the issue, then I can
communicate that back to the HTML WG.

Well, I don't know what you heard, because I wasn't part of the
conversation.
I *do* continue to believe that assigning semantics to a scheme name
prefix is a bad idea, and that the HTML WG needs to consult the IETF
on this.
I believe the current resolution in the IRI WG ticket is misleading,
and that's why I sent the email above.
Best regards, Julian

[Julian Reschke]

Post by Chris Weber
It sounds like there was not adequate discussion about the resolution of
ticket #123 within the IRI WG, and we still need to reach consensus
about its fate.

Actually, it was entered as a "task", and as far as I recall I was told
to enter it during the WG meeting so we can track what's going on.

Post by Chris Weber
There's obviously agreement that 4395bis should not be blocked waiting
on a proposal that handles the new convention. But as Larry states in
"Establishing a convention as proposed could be processed independently,
and wouldn't invalidate anything currently in 4395bis."

That is true. But I would think that that convention should be specified
within the IETF; after all, assigning semantics to name prefixes doesn't
scale, so it needs to be done with care.

Post by Chris Weber
That sounds like the part still facing IRI WG disagreement. What's the
problem with this position and how do we proceed?

My goal was to find a venue for a discussion about this, instead of the
HTML spec just making it a fait accompli.

The venue doesn't necessarily need to be the IRI WG, it also could be
the Apps Area WG, or another place in the IETF. Or maybe even the W3C
TAG; it just needs wider review than the HTML WG; thus I think the IRI
chairs, the area directors, and the two liaisons should come up with a
plan :-)

Best regards, Julian

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Post by Julian Reschke
The venue doesn't necessarily need to be the IRI WG, it also could
be the Apps Area WG, or another place in the IETF. Or maybe even
the W3C TAG; it just needs wider review than the HTML WG; thus I
think the IRI chairs, the area directors, and the two liaisons
should come up with a plan :-)

Good idea. The IRI WG chairs will reach out to the appropriate parties
and report to the WG when we know more.

Peter. as chair

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Post by Peter Saint-Andre

Post by Julian Reschke
The venue doesn't necessarily need to be the IRI WG, it also could
be the Apps Area WG, or another place in the IETF. Or maybe even
the W3C TAG; it just needs wider review than the HTML WG; thus I
think the IRI chairs, the area directors, and the two liaisons
should come up with a plan :-)

Good idea. The IRI WG chairs will reach out to the appropriate parties
and report to the WG when we know more.

My apologies for the delay. I have just started a thread about this
topic with the appropriate parties and will let folks here know what the
resolution is.

Peter