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

closing [htmlIRI-12] (was: Re: IRIs are forbidden in HTML [htmlIRI-12])

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:58:26 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030626155709.00a88450@localhost>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: public-iri@w3.org

Hello Bjoern,

As I haven't heard from you on this issue, I'm assuming
that you are satisfied with my explanations and
herewith close this issue.

Regards,     Martin.

At 11:36 03/04/30 -0400, Martin Duerst wrote:

>Hello Bjoern,
>
>Many thanks for this and other comments on the IRI spec.
>
>At 05:23 03/04/29 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Section 6.3:
>>
>>   "Note: Some formats already accommodate IRIs, although they use
>>   different terminology. HTML 4.0 [HTML4] defines the conversion from
>>   IRIs to URIs as error-avoiding behavior."
>>
>>HTML 4.0 does not accomodate IRIs, HTML 4.0 defines the value of the
>>href, src, etc. attributes as URI References as per RFC 2396, a document
>>using IRIs that are not legal URI References is thus invalid. HTML does
>>indeed recommend an error recovery behaivour, but nothing beyond that.
>
>I have noted this as issue http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit#htmlIRI-12
>
>I think the term 'accommodate' is rather loose, and the text
>points out that for HTML 4.0, this is just error behavior.
>So I don't thing that there is anything wrong with the current
>text.
>If you think that the current text needs some changes, can you
>please propose actual wording?
>
>Also, please note that formally (in the DTD), all the relevant
>fields are defined as CDATA. This means that validation doesn't
>catch IRIs, and documents containing IRIs, while not conforming
>to the HTML 4.0 spec, are therefore not invalid.
>
>
>Regards,    Martin.
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 15:58:42 GMT

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