W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-03.txt

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:25:09 +0900
Message-ID: <4E3751F5.2020505@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:52:02 GMT