Re: What URIs are and are not.

Erik Huizer (
Tue, 09 Nov 93 12:17:31 +0100


> Your comments about the document are important.
> If the document is only comprehensible given a
> historical knowledge of the WG's wandering concept set, then it's no
> use to anybody. I felt that was probably because I had been shy of
> putting in the aims of the document. Was the rest of my
> message any use at setting the objectives? Should some of that
> go into the document itself?

> Perhaps you could point out specifically where the URI
> spec fails to state its objectives.

I saw the draft spec that Jim Fulton managed to write up during some
bar-bofs at the IETF. I think that looks pretty good and contains the
essential points from your earlier posting. I assume Jim will send it to
this list shortly. look at it and see if you can live with it.