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

I'm happy with either of the two texts.
-Anish
--

Martin Gudgin wrote:

> Martin,
> 
> Thank you for your detailed and comprehensive response. The current
> editors copy says:
> 
> "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 the future schemes will be developed
> that use IRI rather than URI naming for resources."
> 
> I would be happy to change this to your text:
> 
> "The type of the resource attribute information item is xs:anyURI. The
> value of the resource attribute information item identifies the Web
> resource whose representation is carried in the rep:Representation
> element information item parent of the resource attribute information
> item."
> 
> What do others in the XMLP WG think?
> 
> Gudge 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org] 
>>Sent: 21 October 2004 00:00
>>To: Martin Gudgin; aphillips@webmethods.com; I18n WSTF; 
>>xml-dist-app@w3.org
>>Cc: Yves Lafon
>>Subject: RE: Closing Issue 502 ( was RE: Issue 502 is closed )
>>
>>Hello Martin,
>>
>>I'm not sure anymore about the exact wording of the original comment,
>>but the intention was definitely to make sure that IRIs worked, and
>>that the spec, test cases, and implementations would not do anything
>>that contradicted that.
>>
>>I think the problem in the CR text at
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-soap12-rep-20040826/#rep-resource is that
>>it says that "the value of the resource attribute information item
>>is a URI", while the definition of anyURI at
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#anyURI
>>very clearly does NOT say that the value space of anyURI is URIs.
>>In particular, it says "The mapping from anyURI values to URIs is...",
>>and so makes it clear that in terms of XML Schema, the value space
>>is the space of IRIs, not URIs.
>>(see also
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/datatypes.h
>>tml#anyURI,
>>which hasn't changed this).
>>
>>So I was taking the CR text as restricting the attribute to URIs only,
>>and I think that anybody else may also easily read it that way.
>>If that, as you say, is not the intention of the XMLP WG, then the
>>text should be changed. I propose the following:
>>
>> >>>>>
>>The type of the resource attribute information item is xs:anyURI.
>>The value of the resource attribute information item
>>identifies the Web resource whose representation is carried in the
>>rep:Representation element information item parent of the resource
>>attribute information item.
>> >>>>
>>
>>And maybe add a note such as:
>>
>> >>>>
>>Note: The anyURI type allows non-ASCII characters, and defines how
>>       to convert an anyURI value to an (ASCII-only) URI if necessary.
>> >>>>
>>
>>At 14:43 04/10/19, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>> >
>> >Speaking for myself; my understanding from the issue raised was that
>> >IRIs contain actual Unicode octets outside the ASCII range, 
>>hence the
>> >examples you provided.
>>
>>Yes indeed.
>>
>> >xs:anyURI allows this. The type of the attribute
>> >in question is xs:anyURI.
>>
>>Yes, but your language seemed to disallow this, as explained above.
>>
>>
>> >The HTTP spec clearly disallows this as only
>> >ASCII characters are allowed in the URI portion, hence the 
>>encoding as
>> >UTF-8 using %HH
>>
>>Yes, but this only applies to URIs in the HTTP protocol (e.g. in
>>a GET request). In the resource attribute, non-ASCII characters are
>>allowed, independent of the URI scheme (i.e. even for http://....).
>>
>> >If you really believe that IRI == Unicode octets == ASCII encoded
>> >unicode octets
>>
>>Well, this is not a matter of believing, this is a matter of 
>>specifying
>>and implementation. And it depends on your use of "==", it's 
>>exact meaning.
>>
>> >then I really don't understand your original issue
>> >because as far as I can tell ALL three versions of the text we have
>> >provided to you would allow one or more of the two encodings. Out
>> >original text in the CR spec allowed both. The first amended version
>> >provided to you allowed ASCII encoded unicode octets, the 
>>latest version
>> >allows both.
>>
>>As I have shown above, that doesn't seem to be the case.
>>
>> >So I don't understand your concern. You wanted the spec to 
>>allow IRIs.
>> >As far as I can tell, given your definiton below, it always has.
>>
>>No, it hasn't, because it restricts the value space of anyURI from
>>IRIs to URIs. If that wasn't the intention of the XMLP WG, then it's
>>easy to fix.
>>
>>Regards,    Martin.
>>
>> >Gudge
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org]
>> >> Sent: 18 October 2004 21:59
>> >> To: Martin Gudgin; aphillips@webmethods.com; I18n WSTF;
>> >> xml-dist-app@w3.org
>> >> Cc: Yves Lafon
>> >> Subject: RE: Closing Issue 502 ( was RE: Issue 502 is closed )
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >> (http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/Overview.html#iri-sc
>> >heme-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 Thursday, 21 October 2004 17:44:22 UTC