# Re: Follow up on charter proposal

Terry Allen (terry@ora.com)
Thu, 6 Jul 1995 14:44:19 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: URI Revised charter proposal"
- Previous message: Leslie Daigle: "Follow up on charter proposal"

    From: "Terry Allen" <terry@ora.com>

    Message-Id: <9507061444.ZM9735@dmg.west.ora.com>

    Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 14:44:19 -0700

    In-Reply-To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@bunyip.com>

    To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@bunyip.com>, uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: Follow up on charter proposal

Leslie:
| A composite reply to some comments on the revised URI charter I proposed
| yesterday...
| [From Terry Allen's message:]
| > >However, it is premature to be nailing down URC standards before we
| > have the primitives sorted out.
| [snip]
| > sorting out is there to do? Be specific, please.
|
| I specifically think it is premature to be picking implementations of
| URCs before we have an appropriate view of how they fit in with the
| rest of the URI structure. As a concrete example, my earlier message
| exchange with Mark Madsen culminates with me having the impression that
| his work is interpreting the _proposed SGML implementation_ of URC's, not
| the URC concept in general.

Mark did refer to Ron's SGML example and used SGML by way of illustration,
but no one is arguing for SGML as the sole implementation. I'm still
waiting for specific criticisms from you.

| Thus, when the rest of the URI work has
| caught up with URC's, we'll be left with a legacy of an implementation AND
| derivative work that was built before we'd nailed the basics of URNs
| and URN resolution.

Gosh, it sure looks as though we'd be left with a very flexible
architecture for URC implementations. Do you disagree? If so,
why, specifically?

[...]

| My point is that I don't believe it is time to base the entire URC
| implementation on that one use of URCs; as an example, the Silk software is
| already making use of things that we would _like_ to be able to call a type of
| URC object, but URC's may be nailed shut before we get all of our
| requirements shaken out.

Perhaps you'd like to write up an I-D, or make specific criticisms
of proposals now before the group. So far as I can see, no proposal
presently advanced nails anything shut on URCs. What are your requirements
to date? how do they conflict with proposals now made public?

Regards,

    --
    Terry Allen  (terry@ora.com)   O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
    Editor, Digital Media Group    101 Morris St.
    			       Sebastopol, Calif., 95472

    A Davenport Group sponsor.  For information on the Davenport
      Group see ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/davenport/README.html
    	or  http://www.ora.com/davenport/README.html

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: URI Revised charter proposal"
- Previous message: Leslie Daigle: "Follow up on charter proposal"