WG Charter - Second reading

I have made some minor edits to the charter to reflect the comments I have
received to date.  I also added some dates to the milestones section.

Unless there are further comments, it's time to move forward.

Rich Petke ([email protected])

--------------

Process & Guidelines for URLs (PGURL)

Co-Chairs:

Rich Petke ([email protected])
Ian King ([email protected])

Applications Area Directors:

Keith Moore ([email protected])
Harald Alvestrand ([email protected])

Mailing List Information

General Discussion:  [email protected]
To Subscribe:  [email protected]
   With "subscribe" as the body of the message.
Archive:

Description of Working Group

This working group exists for the purpose of creating one document:  A
guideline for the creators of new URL schemes.  The purpose of this
guideline is to help ensure that new URL schemes:

  - Consistently implement the general syntax of URLs as specified in
    RFC 1738.
  - Are compatible with relative URLs as specified in RFC 1802.
  - Are compatible with existing URL schemes.
  - Have clearly specified character encoding rules.
  - Have a well defined set of operations specified for them.
  - Support the use of proxies into HTTP/HTML (where possible).
  - Properly address security issues.

The guideline will also:

  - Reiterate that all new URL schemes need to be described in standards
    track documents.
  - Specify a mechanism for the registration of new URL schemes.

The following issues are considered beyond the scope of this working
group and shall not be addressed by it:

  - The combining of RFC 1738 and RFC 1802 into a draft standard document.
  - Specific URL schemes, previously proposed or not, except as test
    cases for the guidelines document.
  - UR* schemes other than URLs.
  - Internationalization in any context other than URLs.


Justification for working group:

RFC 1738 defined URL schemes for a number of protocols popular at the
time that it was written.  Many URL schemes for protocols not addressed
in RFC 1738 have been proposed since the publication of that RFC.

Due to the absence of guidelines for the development of new URL schemes,
some of these recently proposed schemes lack completeness.  Further,
while some of these schemes are now on the standards track, no mechanism
for the registration of these new schemes has yet been specified.

This proposed output of this working group is needed in order to help
ensure the overall integrity and consistency of URLs.


Goals and Milestones

5/1/97  Publish a draft of the document which contains consensus
        language on I18N issues, and compatibility issues related to
        RFC 1738 and RFC 1802.

7/1/97  Publish final draft of document which reflects consensus on
        all issues including the registration process for new RFC.