W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-ws@w3.org > October 2004

RE: Closing Issue 502 ( was RE: Issue 502 is closed )

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:59:03 +0900
Message-Id: <>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <aphillips@webmethods.com>, "I18n WSTF" <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>

At 23:51 04/10/15, Martin Gudgin wrote:
 >I think the sentence makes sense as is, but I've added the 'the' anyway. We
 >used 'schemes' because our understanding is that it's the scheme which
 >defines what characters are legal in an identifier per that scheme.

I was confused quite a bit by this because I assumed that 'scheme'
was referring to the XML Schema that would restrict the use of anyURI
to ASCII only for the time being.

Now that I have again read through the thread, my understanding is
that by "scheme", you mean URI scheme. If that's the case, then
the text (independent of the various tweaks discussed) is based on
some very wrong assumptions.

As discussed quite explicitly and extensively in issue iri-scheme-38
and reflected in the spec itself in many ways (not the least being
various examples), there is no a priori distinction between URI
schemes and IRI schemes. There are only URI schemes, but every
URI scheme can, potentially at least, be used with IRIs.

The condition for use with IRIs is, roughly, that the scheme requires
or allows non-ASCII characters to be encoded in UTF-8 and %HH in the
URI scheme or actual URIs or parts thereoff.

As such, in particular the HTTP scheme definitely qualifies for use
with IRIs, because it allows non-ASCII characters to be encoded in
UTF-8 and %HH. Because it only allows, rather than requires, this,
individual HTTP URIs, or parts theroff, may work more or less well
with IRIs. Indeed, if you put a HTTP URI containing a %HH sequence
based on UTF-8 in its path into the location field of a modern
browser (e.g. Opera or Safari), it will automatically convert
this to actual (Unicode) characters. On the other hand, if you
input an http: IRI there, these browsers (and some others) will
automatically convert using UTF-8 and %HH as part of their
HTTP resolution.

So the fundamental assumption behind the text is wrong; IRIs
can be used already with many existing URI schemes.

Regards,     Martin.

 >> > Dear Martin and I18N,
 >> >
 >> > Regarding issue 502[1], the XMLP Working Group has amended
 >> section 4.2.2
 >> > if the Resource Representation SOAP Header Block
 >> specification to read:
 >> >
 >> > "The type of the resource attribute information item is
 >> xs:anyURI. The
 >> > value of the resource attribute information item is a URI that
 >> > identifies the Web resource whose representation is carried in the
 >> > rep:Representation element information item parent of the resource
 >> > attribute information item. NOTE: the use of the xs:anyURI type
 >> > anticipates the possibility that in future schemes will be developed
 >> > that use IRI rather than URI naming for resources."
 >> >
 >> > We trust this addresses your concern about allowing IRIs in
 >> the resource
 >> > attribute.
 >> >
 >> > Regards
 >> >
 >> > Martin Gudgin
 >> > For the XMLP WG
 >> >
 >> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x502
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 04:59:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:39 UTC