W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > March 2008

Re: possible issue with LEIRI definition in draft-duerst-iri-bis-02.txt

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:21:54 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20080305101950.0d98c570@localhost>
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, "Addison Phillips" <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, <public-iri@w3.org>

Hello Paul,

Many thanks for your careful reading. I have added this as
issue leiri-relative-116 at
http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit#leiri-relative-116

I'm not able to post a new draft at this moment because of the
IETF publication moratorium before the IETF meeting, but I'll
get back to it as soon as possible.

Regards,    Martin.

At 02:31 08/03/05, Grosso, Paul wrote:
>
>I was just rereading the LEIRI section of
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-bis-02.txt
>where it says:
>
> The syntax of Legacy Extended IRIs is the same as that
> for IRIs, except that ucschar is redefined....
>
>In section "2.2. ABNF for IRI References and IRIs", it
>has a production for IRI (that has a required scheme)
>and another for IRI-reference.
>
>One could read section 7 to say that a LEIRI must match
>the production for IRI which would mean there could be
>no such thing as a relative LEIRI.  I'm quite sure we
>don't want this.
>
>I think section 7 needs to say:
>
> The syntax of Legacy Extended IRIs is the same as that
> for IRI-reference, except that ucschar is redefined....
>
>since the production for IRI-reference is:
>
>  IRI-reference = IRI / irelative-ref
>
>making IRI-reference the most inclusive one.
>
>paul


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2008 01:25:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:51:54 GMT