Re: What URIs are and are not.

Tim Berners-Lee <>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 93 11:28:48 +0100
From: Tim Berners-Lee <>
Message-id: <>
To: "Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV)" <>
Subject: Re: What URIs are and are not.

>Date: Mon, 08 Nov 93 17:12:08 +0100
>From: "Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV)" <>

>> Listen good if you are a newcomer to the list or on the
>> IESG ;-)
>This is the second sneer of this sort, and I start to dislike it.

Snmeer not intended. (I must brush up my smiley technique.)
Sorry, Erik, I realised too late I had said something similar
-- also with a big wink -- in an earlier message.

Nor a complaint.  Obviously there is not enough background
requirements spec in the document.  Anyone, (IESG members included)
comming with a broader outlook is going to want to know what the
URI WG thinks it is talking about.  There is maybe an image of
a "newcomer" as a spotty kid who's just found out about the IETF
and come along to experience it -- not true in general for the URI WG
as most are people with great experience coming in from related
 fields as the URI field has some bearing on the other bits.

I hope
>that the IESG (i.e. my) intervention has been positive and has been  
>to get the URI WG back up to speed.

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?

IESG involvement with "a WG which takes 18 months over 12 pages"
is also appropriate.

>I also like to argue that although I have not read all mail to this  
>nor attended all meetings of the group that my level of involvement  
>sufficient to have an overview of what is happening and what has  
>discussed before.

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

>Furthermore, my name is written with a k rather than a c.

Please excuse me!