- From: Joseph A Holsten <joseph@josephholsten.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 02:56:53 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, URI <uri@w3.org>, "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Julian Reschke supposedly wrote: > Joseph A Holsten wrote: >> ... >> The only scheme I can think of that was defined as an IRI was XMPP >> [RFC4622]. It actually makes more sense when you start with IRIs. >> If that's what you need, please just do that. >> ... > > Actually, that RFC *registers* a URI scheme; see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4622#section-3 > >. It does, and so should websocket. But every other scheme RFC defines the URI first and foremost, then describes how to map IRIs. If websocket will be an IRI scheme first and foremost, defining it in terms of ihier-part and iquery makes sense. Then just adapt the text from RFC4622 sections 2 and 3. The first sentence from <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4622#section-2.8.1 > seems quite similar to Ian's preference with websocket: "If a processing application is presented with an XMPP URI and not with an XMPP IRI, it MUST first convert the URI into an IRI by following the procedure specified in Section 3.2 of [IRI]." -- Joseph Holsten
Received on Saturday, 5 September 2009 07:57:39 UTC