- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:56:00 +0100
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Marting Duerst wrote:
> I think that there is a consensus that LEIRIs are a bad idea. The
> current(ly expired) draft actually says so. What there is no
> consensus on is whether nevertheless, LEIRIs should be described in
> the (future) IRI spec.
The reason the W3C XML Core WG asked for the prose labelled "7.0
Legacy Extended IRIs" in the RFC3987bis draft [1] was to have a named
central place to reference for the range of XML specifications which
share a need to specify the conversion of XML system identifiers into
IRIs. The IRI spec itself seemed to us to be the right place for
this, in terms of both technical and organizational appropriateness.
The WG is happy with the introduction to section 7, which makes clear
that LEIRIs are defined as a necessary bridge for specs which predate
IRIs, not as a mechanism for new specs or languages.
ht
[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-bis-03.txt
- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIc4AAkjnJixAXWBoRAqBiAJ4yZJOufoNf/FTtp++vJDToRLOB1QCfeXZI
MYMcCTN1RhvIqwLMhFbX5CI=
=+XPm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 14:56:39 UTC