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

Re: Some issues with the IRI document [nfcnfkc-04]

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:20:30 -0700
Message-Id: <p05210630bac26dddbb4a@[142.131.246.132]>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, public-iri@w3.org

At 5:22 PM -0400 4/15/03, Martin Duerst wrote:
>Overall, the normalization strategy on IRIs varies according to the
>place in the URI:
>
>- For domain name part: use NFKC or more (i.e. nameprep), but
>   gets normalized again (with nameprep) when doing dns lookup.
>- For the path part: preferably NFKC, but NFC is okay when needed.
>- For the query part: There may be cases where you on purpose
>   want to use something totally unnormalized (e.g. when submitting
>   unnormalized data to a CGI script that normalizes).
>
>Does that sound reasonable? Do you think it needs any changes in the
>draft, and if yes, what would be those changes?

It doesn't sound reasonable if you intend IRI comparison to be 
interoperable. If you don't intend IRI comparison to be 
interoperable, I still would pick one normalization for each of the 
three parts, and I would pick NFKC, but you don't have to be 
consistent if interoperability isn't important.

Am I the only person who worries about IRI comparison being interoperable?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 22:33:10 GMT

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