# question

Karen R. Sollins (sollins@lcs.mit.edu)
Tue, 30 Nov 93 13:25:45 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: File Type/Directory Annotation for FTP URL Spec"
- Previous message: Michael Mealling: "uri info archive stuff?"
- Next in thread: Chris Weider: "Re: question"
- Maybe reply: Chris Weider: "Re: question"

    Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 13:25:45 -0500

    Message-Id: <9311301825.AA01997@zippy.lcs.mit.edu>

    From: Karen R. Sollins <sollins@lcs.mit.edu>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: question

I have a question for the working group police. In the URI group we
are now writing these functional "specs" of various parts of the
architecture. Is it the model that these functional specs will be
standards track documents? Certainly it is the case that the specs
for URLs, URNs, and URCs will be standards. In that case, we will be
following in one of the paths of the ISO by writing standards for
standards. I assume that non-standards documents where necessary are
allowed to come from working groups whose mission is to write
standards.

It is my recommendation that these functional specs not be standards,
because otherwise I believe we'd be setting a precedent that we don't
want to be setting. What are our other options for types of
documents?
Karen

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: File Type/Directory Annotation for FTP URL Spec"
- Previous message: Michael Mealling: "uri info archive stuff?"
- Next in thread: Chris Weider: "Re: question"
- Maybe reply: Chris Weider: "Re: question"