[art] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-15: (with DISCUSS)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-15: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Appendix C: this spec and the whatwg web page may or may not
be in conflict. I think this may be the first PS that we've
produced where that fact finally hits that fan - is that
right? If not, then I'll clear as we'll already have decided
there's nothing to be done about odd behaviour with
"competing" specifications for the same thing (that thing
being RFC3986). If this is the first time we've gotten to
this point, then I think the IESG ought explicitly decide
that we are going to live with what we all know is a pretty
crap situation where different implementers (web vs. non-web
basically) supporting various kinds of URL/URI are liable to
end up doing different and potentially non-interoperable
things. (There is no action required from the author. For the
IESG - we discussed this a couple of years back, but there
have been some personnel changes since and I forget if the
current set of ADs are or are not up to speed with and ok
with this.)