W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > May 2004

RE: Migration of HTTP to the use of IRIs [queryclarify-16]

From: Michel Suignard <michelsu@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 17:43:46 -0700
Message-ID: <84DD35E3DD87D5489AC42A59926DABE90721943E@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:51:53 GMT