- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:25:09 +0900
- To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-iri@w3.org
On 2011/08/02 1:30, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > 01.08.2011 12:49, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: >>> Ibid: >>> >>>> reserving the >>>> term "URN" explicitly for those URIs/IRIs using the "urn" scheme name >>>> ([RFC2141]). >>> >>> RFC 2141 doesn't allow 'urn' IRIs, not they exist at all. I propose the >>> following correction: OLD: "URIs/IRIs", NEW: "URIs". >> >> RFC 2141 indeed doesn't currently allow 'urn:' IRIs. But likewise, the >> HTTP spec doesn't currently allow 'http:' IRIs. Nevertheless, they get >> used. Actually, the situation is better for urn: IRIs, because RFC >> 2141 is very clear that non-ASCII characters in urn: URIs have to be >> percent-encoded using UTF-8, whereas HTTP leaves this open. So in this >> sense, an urn: IRI is not a problem at all. > > But we have never seen any evidence of 'urn' IRIs; That doesn't assure that there are none, nor that there will be none. > I suppose this issue > will be under consideration of URNBIS WG. No. The URI/IRI distinction is orthogonal of schemes. Regards, Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 01:25:41 UTC