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

Re: Editorial suggestions for draft-duerst-iri-07 [issue editorial-Lilley-27]

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 05:26:13 +0200
Message-ID: <719569353.20040514052613@w3.org>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Cc: public-iri@w3.org

On Tuesday, May 11, 2004, 2:59:51 PM, Martin wrote:

MD> At 03:08 04/05/11 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:

>>Hello public-iri,

MD> Hello Chris,

MD> Many thanks for your comments. Because they are all editorial,
MD> I have kept them as a single issue.
MD> [http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/#editorial-Lilley-27]
MD> Up to now, I haven't usually 'issuefied' editorial stuff, but I'm
MD> starting to do that to document what has happened in last call.


>>These editorial comments relate to
>>http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri-07.txt
>>
>> From the new appendix A
>>
>> >  New schemes are not needed to distinguish URIs from true IRIs (i.e.
>>    IRIs that contain non-ASCII characters). The benefit of being able to
>>    detect the origin of percent-encodings is marginal, also because
>>    UTF-8 can be detected with very high reliably. Deploying new schemes
>>    is extremely hard. Not needing new schemes for IRIs makes deployment
>>    of IRIs vastly easier. Making conversion scheme-dependent is highly
>>    unadvisable. Using an uniform convention for conversion from IRIs to
>>    URIs makes IRI implementation orthogonal from the introduction of
>>    acual new schemes.
>>
>>I suggest some slight wording and spelling changes (editorial)
>>
>>   New schemes are not needed to distinguish URIs from true IRIs (i.e.
>>   IRIs that contain non-ASCII characters). The benefit of being able
>>   to detect the origin of percent-encodings is marginal, because UTF-8
>>   can be detected with very high reliability. Deploying new schemes is
>>   extremely hard, so not requiring new schemes for IRIs makes
>>   deployment of IRIs vastly easier. Making conversion scheme-dependent
>>   is highly inadvisable, and would be encouraged by such an approach.
>>   Using an uniform convention for conversion from IRIs to URIs makes
>>   IRI implementation orthogonal to the introduction of actual new
>>   schemes.

MD> Changed. I replaced "by such an approach" with "by separate schemes
MD> for IRIs" to make things even clearer.

Thats good.


>>It might also be added that the TAG recommends not adding new schemes
>>that are almost exactly like HTTP; i:http: or httpi: would have
>>exactly that problem.

MD> Do you have a reference? I'd like to give the underlying argument
MD> rather than just saying 'the TAG said'.

Architecture of the World Wide Web, First Edition
Editor's Draft 10 May 2004

2.4. URI Schemes
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/#URI-scheme

Good practice: New URI schemes

A specification SHOULD NOT introduce a new URI scheme when an existing
scheme provides the desired properties of identifiers and their
relation to resources


>> >  UTF-8 avoids a double layering and overloading of the use of the "+"
>>    character. UTF-8 is fully compatible with US-ASCII, and has
>>    therefore been recommended by the IETF, and is being used widely,
>>    while UTF-7 has never been used much and is now clearly being
>>    discouraged.
>>
>>I suggest a small change
>>
>>    Using UTF-8 avoids a double layering and overloading of the use of
>>    the "+" character. UTF-8 is fully compatible with US-ASCII, and has
>>    therefore been recommended by the IETF, and is being used widely,
>>    while UTF-7 has never been used much and is now clearly being
>>    discouraged.
>>
>>You might also mention here that using UTF-8 here is existing practice

MD> Do you mean in the context of URIs, or much more general?

Both.

MD> The subsection starts out with "At an early stage, UTF-7 was considered",
MD> and in that context, it wouldn't be true. The fact that many URI
MD> schemes now use UTF-8 in one way or another is largely due to the decision
MD> to use UTF-8 for IRIs, and to the general rise of UTF-8.

So its circular. Okay.


>>and that requiring implementations to convert to the rarely used UTF-7
>>is an additional implementation burden.

MD> That's a good point. I added:
MD> "Requiring implementations to convert from UTF-8
MD> to UTF-7 and back would be an additional implementation burden."

Great.

>>The arguments against using %u and against inline encoding
>>declarations are well made.

MD> Thanks!


>>In 3.1  Mapping of IRIs to URIs, the renumbering of the sub steps in
>>step two is clearer than in the previous draft.

MD> Thanks. That was a private suggestion from Chris Haynes.


>>Should non-realworld, non-resolving sample URIs such as
>>http://big.site/PopularPage.html not be, for example,
>>http://big.example/PopularPage.html ?

MD> In that case probably http://big.example.com/PopularPage.html.
MD> Done. [I made that example.com, even though all other examples
MD> are example.org, but I guess in that case, that's justified.]


Yes, thats fine.

Thank you, I am satisfied by the response to all my comments.

-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Friday, 14 May 2004 11:48:38 GMT

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