[gcs-pcs-list] call to vote: table the URI debate

[Xiaoming Liu]

+1

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcs-pcs-list-bounces at cipolo.med.yale.edu
> [mailto:gcs-pcs-list-bounces at cipolo.med.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel
> Chudnov
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:45 PM
> To: gcs-pcs-list at cipolo.med.yale.edu
> Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] call to vote: table the URI debate
>
> We could keep debating the URI vs. not-URI thing for another two weeks,
> but then we'd stay distracted from addressing other pressing issues in
> the meantime.  So:
>
> SEEING AS many of us are keenly interested in resolving (he-heh... I
> said
> "resolving") this debate, and;
>
> SEEING AS there are many other issues to address that are arguably far
> simpler and, thus, more likely to be quickly resolved (heh), and;
>
> SEEING AS we all want to keep pushing forward, and;
>
> SEEING AS many of us have previously gone 15 rounds of heavyweight
> slugging with the identifier demon before and lived to swear vilely
> about it, but;
>
> SEEING AS ALSO how important this is to be sure we decide on before
> we're
> done;
>
> BE IT PROPOSED that we should table the identifier debate until after
> the
> next revision or after such time has passed that a number of interesting
> new unAPI-driven applications make it easier to weigh the options based
> on real code and not our hard-won (or, in my case, lost) biases, and;
>
> BE IT DECIDED that we will leave the spec unchanged, for now, on the
> topic of what we mean by "URI" and "identifier", but;
>
> LET IT NOT BE FORGOTTEN that this is of critical importance and to be
> taken up again soon, as so stated in the previous-by-two paragraph.
>
> What say?
>
>  -Dan
>
>
>