- From: Michel Suignard <michelsu@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 17:43:46 -0700
- To: "Chris Haynes" <chris@harvington.org.uk>
- Cc: <public-iri@w3.org>, "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
> From: Chris Haynes > Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 4:50 AM > > Actually, my original core concern has now been covered in your section > 1.2.a - Applicability, where you make it clear that "the intent is not to > introduce IRIs into contexts that are not defined to accept them". > > This now makes it clear that new schemas will be required to replace > http: , https: etc. These will need to be self-identifying in some way, so > that receiving equipment will know that an IRI is being presented. > > So, as I commented last June, I await with interest the recognition among > those responsible for the HTTP schema that new schemas with new names are > required before IRIs can be used. I'd like to comment on that. The IRI spec is fairly explicit on that IRI can be used as presentation elements for URI protocol elements (ref clause 3 intro). This is to recognize that applications out there have not waited for us for creating presentation layers that use non ascii native characters for schemes that supposedly should not use them (such as http). The presentation layer principle is there to support that. So I expect IRI to be used for both purposes: - presentation layer for existing URI schemes - core layer for new schemes exclusively defined using IRI for protocol elements syntax. For a while I'd expect the vast majority of IRI usage to be in the first category. Michel
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2004 20:44:22 UTC