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

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

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:57:02 -0600
Message-ID: <4CA3A81E.9080002@stpeter.im>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
On 9/29/10 10:53 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:13 AM, "Martin J. Dürst"
> <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> <snipped>
>> I agree in principle. But the 63 octet length limit for domain names does
>> not directly affect IRIs, and therefore cannot be a normative limit, only an
>> informative one. You give an example of that further below, but to quote
>> from the URI spec (RFC 3986, see
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.2):
>>   This specification does not mandate a particular registered name
>>   lookup technology and therefore does not restrict the syntax of reg-
>>   name beyond what is necessary for interoperability.  Instead, it
>>   delegates the issue of registered name syntax conformance to the
>>   operating system of each application performing URI resolution, and
>>   that operating system decides what it will allow for the purpose of
>>   host identification.  A URI resolution implementation might use DNS,
>>   host tables, yellow pages, NetInfo, WINS, or any other system for
>>   lookup of registered names.  However, a globally scoped naming
>>   system, such as DNS fully qualified domain names, is necessary for
>>   URIs intended to have global scope.  URI producers should use names
>>   that conform to the DNS syntax, even when use of DNS is not
>>   immediately apparent, and should limit these names to no more than
>>   255 characters in length.
> Perhaps the easiest way to resolve this, then is a set of informative
> pointers to the suggested and normative limits.  RFC 3986 for the
> suggestion to fit within DNS limits, RFC 1034 for the DNS limits,
> and a note to check the scheme registration for specific schemes
> when checking limits.
> Does that work?

That seems reasonable to me.


Peter Saint-Andre
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 20:57:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:41 UTC