Re: Criticisms of vnd draft

Howdy,

One clarification:

On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Ian King wrote:
> I've also used language that sounds as if compliance with the URL guidelines
> draft is somehow optional.  I did that deliberately at the time, although I
> can't recall why; in any event, Leslie pointed it out, and I plan to change
> it to make compliance with both the syntax draft and guidelines draft
> required (people will do what they do anyway).  

I caught this on in the URL REG document -- where it says that non
IETF tree URLs need not conform to URL syntax. Specifically:

> 3.3 Alternative Trees

[snip]
>   URL schemes created in an alternative tree are encouraged to conform
>   to the generic URL syntax, RFC 2396, but are not required to do so.
>   However, the tree's defining document must set forth the strength of
>   this requirement.  

We have a syntax standard -- we shouldn't actively condone ignoring it.


Leslie.


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

  "Never confuse                               Leslie Daigle
     an appreciation of the simple                              
              for                              Bunyip Information Systems Inc.
     a lack of understanding of the complex."  +1 514 285 0088
                  -- ThinkingCat               [email protected]
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------