W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > April 2003

Fwd: RE: IRIs [was: [Minutes] 17 Mar 2003 TAG teleconf...]

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 11:46:28 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030407114247.02ddb020@127.0.0.1>
To: <uri@w3.org>
Cc: public-iri@w3.org

At the IETF URI BOF, there was some discussion of problems caused by 
allowing additional characters in IRIs...   here are a couple of examples I 
spotted mention of elsewhere.

(I'm not subscribed to public-iri, so my apologies if this has already been 
noted there.)

#g
--

>From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>To: <www-tag@w3.org>
>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:18:33 +0100
>Subject: RE: IRIs [was: [Minutes] 17 Mar 2003 TAG teleconf...]
>
>
> > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> > Chris Lilley
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:52 PM
> > To: Dan Connolly
> > Cc: Henry S. Thompson; Paul Grosso; www-tag@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: IRIs [was: [Minutes] 17 Mar 2003 TAG teleconf...]
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Yes. Which does not rule out making the specs as close as possible to
> > where we think they will ultimately end up.
>
>I'll take that as an opportunity that XMLNS 1.1's definition of IRIs include
>
>- the space character (breaking XML schema's schemaLocation attribute) and
>- "{" and "}" (breaking the current popular practice to use ("{" + ns + "}"
>+ localname) to build unique identifiers from XML element names (JAXP API).
>
>(and now I'll try to shut up :-)
>
>Julian
>
>
>--
><green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Monday, 7 April 2003 12:40:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:51:52 GMT