W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > July 2009

Re: IDNA and IRI document way forward

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:05:40 +0200
To: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com>, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: "Erik van der Poel" <erikv@google.com>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <PUBLIC-IRI@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uxvtbqfo64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:00:24 +0200, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
>> I think the continued repetition of "HTML5" here
>> is confusing. HTML5 was the first to define the
>> algorithm, but it is used by Web browsers for HTTP,
>> CSS, HTML, XMLHttpRequest, etc. and for all these
>>  there is content out there that depends on it.
>
> "HTML5" refers to the HTML 5 spec, not the Hypertext
> Markup Language that is among the things the spec
> attempts to define.

Sure, but HTTP, XMLHttpRequest, CSS, etc. are not part of the HTML 5 spec yet still need to use the same algorithm in the end. That is part of the reason why we defined it separately so the continued repetition that this is just for HTML5 is confusing, in my opinion.


>> Also, it makes much more sense (due to the URL
>>  character encoding) to map Hypertext References
>> directly to URIs rather than frame them as some
>>  type of IRI.
>
> I don't understand this: the IRI document currently
> describes a HREF -> URI mapping; is that OK
> with you?

My bad, yes that is perfectly OK with me. (I guess I'm getting brainwashed by suggestions that Hypertext References can simply be mapped to IRIs.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 13:06:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:51:55 GMT