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

Proposed Charter and Agenda for IRI BOF at IETF 76

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:37:18 -0700
To: "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <PUBLIC-IRI@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118DBB47AF8@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>
While I am still hoping a working group isn't necessary, the
fallback is to start an IETF working group. This message
proposes an agenda for a meeting to form the working group
("BOF" at IETF 76) and a draft charter.

Is there interest in participating in a BOF at the
Hiroshima meeting? Please discuss on public-iri@w3.org.



AGENDA:
=======
The primary agenda is to review the charter and discover
the level of community interest:

90 minute agenda

* 10 minutes, Masinter
  Review of URI and IRI history & current documents
* 20 minutes, Masinter & Duerst
   Review of IRI draft(s) and open issues
* 20 minutes, Masinter
  Review of other drafts being coordinated 
  with URI / IRI sections, and other
   committees, and schedules for these.
* 20 minutes, discussion: which documents can
   be ignored, which other documents added?
   what other committees involved?
* 20 minutes, Masinter
  Working group charter
    Hum on charter section by section
         AS IS vs NEEDS WORK vs NO WAY
    Show of interest in work in working group

Proposed Working Group Charter

MOTIVATION:
===========

Having documents in conflict with widely deployed implementations is a
general pain which we should work to correct. This working group
proposal is specifically being made to address the problem that the 
current draft of the HTML 5 specification:

   http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#urls

in order to match current and expected browser behavior, contains a
definition of the term "URL" and associated algorithms.  For example,
 
 "NOTE: The term "URL" in this specification is used in a manner
  distinct from the precise technical meaning it is given in RFC
  3986. Readers familiar with that RFC will find it easier to read this
  specification if they pretend the term "URL" as used herein is really
  called something else altogether. This is a willful violation of RFC
  3986. [RFC3986]"

In addition, several other specifications also have contained
redefinitions of URI-like elements to match their own idea of what
should or shouldn't be allowed in a URI when it is expanded to allow
non-ASCII characters.

The primary goal of this working group is to bring together the
authors and editors of the multiple specifications being developed
which have independent definitions of what is or isn't a valid
(Uniform Internationalized) Resource (Identifier Locator) in a way
that conservative producers can produce identifiers that will work
with any number of consumers.

The fact that the IETF documents for URI and IRI are, in fact, not
suitable for direct citation by those wishing to describe deployed
browser behavior seems like something the IETF can correct.

Further goals are discussed in 
     http://larry.masinter.net/iribis-hack.html, section 12

Charter
=======

This working group is scoped to produce a new version of 
RFC 3987 IRI specification which can be used directly by
future W3C XML and HTML specifications, as well as other
IETF documents.

Current Internet Draft
       draft-duerst-iri-bis-06

(see also http://larry.masinter.net/iribis-hack.html for
update in prep ... will update agenda when ID is available)


In addition, the working group MAY consider, if absolutely
necessary to accomplish the goal, updates to RFC 3986  (URI)
RFC 4395  (URI Guidelines), either within the IRI document
(as an 'Updates') or as separate small update documents.
NOTE that topics relating to URIs and IRIs not necessary
to resolve IETF/W3C differences are Out of Scope.

SCHEDULE:

Review of Internet Draft(s) and selection of direction
October 2009: Review of Internet Drafts and selection
    of ONE of the two directions
December 2009: Working group Last Call
March 2010:  Publish IRI update as Draft Standard

Documents for review by this group:
-----------------------------------
As the PRIMARY role of this working group is to bring together a core
group to resolve conflicts between various documents in
preparation. For this reason the liaison function is most important:

IETF HTTPBIS working group
   http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/charters
preparing: 
    draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-07
    See section 9.2 on HTTP URI scheme

HTML5 definition of "URLs"
      http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#urls 
   by W3C HTML Working Group
     charter: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/
     URL/IRI issue: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/56
  and  [WHATWG]  http://www.whatwg.org/
 
Other Documents currently individual submissions
    draft-duerst-mailto-bis-06

IETF IDNABIS working group
  http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/idnabis-charter.html

W3C TAG
 issue: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/27
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 11:38:04 GMT

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