scope of applicability for IRIs

John Klensin wrote (on 

> I do believe that there has
> been a long-term, and often largely hidden, disagreement about
> the applicability of IRIs --whether they are about standardizing
> a user interface element or whether they are expected to act as
> protocol elements-- that complicates these discussions.


My original goal -- in defining "IRI" as separate from "URI" --
was that the applicability of IRIs was to be independently
determined. That is, applications and protocols would *choose*
whether to reference the URI document or the IRI document
(and a specific non-terminal within the IRI document.)

That is, specifications which cited URI would not automatically 
be "upgraded" to use IRIs, but rather must explicitly choose.

I think this is possible with the URI -> IRI path, and that
it has been explicit, although a bit haphazard.

Unfortunately, because of divergent practice, there are
more than one non-terminal protocol elements in common use
which require documentation, including LEIRI for reference
by XML-based specifications and HREF (a.k.a. Web Address)
explicitly to match HTML5. I don't see any way to avoid
the divergence, even if discouraging it.

Do you think this approach might allow the IRI document
to move forward and let the applicability discussions
continue in more appropriate contexts?

I will try to make this approach explicit in the IRI document.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net