W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > September 2010

IRI length limits (ticket #37 => #46, #47, #48)

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 19:08:41 +0900
Message-ID: <4CA1BEA9.1030105@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
Ticket #37 raises the issue of length limits for domain names (and 
implicitly, for IRIs in general).

Among chairs and editors, we came to the conclusion that there are at 
least three aspects:

1) normative (i.e., hard and fast) length limits

2) practical length limits where advice to implementers may be appropriate

3) the question of whether schemes can set specific length limits

I have therefore split this issue into three new issues as below. 
Comments are appreciated.

#46: Normative length limits
(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/46)
    I personally propose that we close this issue without action, because
    I was unable to find any such limits in RFC 3986 (URIs), and do not
    think such limits make any sense.

#47: Practical length limits
(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/47)
    I personally think that the main advice we have to give implementers
    is that they may have to increase length limits in some cases.

#48: Can schemes set specific length limits? Should RFC4395bis say 
something about this?
    My current thinking is that obviously, schemes can set some length
    limits, because they can define syntax restrictions. Also, they
    could do that in silly, counterproductive ways. But this all seems
    to be rather obvious, so I personally think that we may not need
    to say anything on this topic.

As a result of these new issues, I'm going to close issue #37.

Regards,   Martin.

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 10:09:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:51:59 GMT