Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-kerwin-file-scheme

[Matthew Kerwin <[e-mail]>]

On 21 December 2014 at 05:55, Larry Masinter <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > This opens a call for adoption for draft-kerwin-file-scheme, to be
> processed by APPSAWG.
>
> I don't think apps area should take up kerwin-file-scheme as an
> independent work item, not because the work isn't important but because
> apps-discuss is too congested to manage the discussion (no responses to my
> Dec 9 comments
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg13462.html
> ). In general, APPSAWG shouldn't take up URL-scheme permanent
> registrations? Or should it? This should be addressed in the scheme
> registration BCP.
>
>
Sorry for not responding sooner, I've been a bit overwhelmed with real
life, and there's quite a back-log of comments and messages to aggregate
and process.

Regarding adoption of URL schemes by this WG, what alternatives would you
propose? I could instead try to make it an individual submission, but this
particular scheme has a lot of political and emotional history, and there
seems to be more and more work involved with developing the spec, so I'd
rather have much more buy-in through the whole process (such as you get
from a working group). I don't think it's big enough to warrant spinning up
its own WG, and I'm not aware of any others that would be more appropriate
than here.

​Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/