RE: IANA considerations for PIDF

At 02:32 PM 4/16/02 +0100, Adrian Bateman wrote:
>Yes, we have a newer proposal that avoids this (see the recent messages
>to the list, there haven't been too many ;^>). I've been a bit tied up
>this week but I hope to write up the text and post it to the list in the
>next day or so.

My noise filters are maybe getting too effective :^)

I just scanned the messages and don't really see that they substantially 
change anything.

My own comments were trying to suggest an alternative syntax for the 
capabilities that seem to be already there.  However, I'm happy to wait for 
a revised proposal.

Meanwhile:  I'll assume that no additional registry will be required and 
post what I've got to the list...

#g

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<[email protected]>



  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]