- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 05:26:13 +0200
- 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 UTC