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

Re: I-D Action: draft-reschke-ref-parsing-00.txt

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:35:40 +0900
Message-ID: <4E37546C.8070404@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, public-iri@w3.org


On 2011/07/03 20:07, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-07-03 12:30, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> * internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>> directories.
>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reschke-ref-parsing-00.txt
>>
>> I think it is unnecessary and confusing to have this "Candidate" layer
>> of indirection (I don't see what trouble people have with the regular
>> expression to begin with, so I feel similar about the document as a
>> whole). It's not meaningful for instance to say some string has scheme,
>> authority, path, but only a candidate query; that's just weird.
>
> I found it useful to have terms for the components of a reference that
> isn't valid. What do others think?

I also found it useful and clear.

>> In section 3.2 you have "The result will be a valid URI Reference if
>> and only if the components used by the algorithm were valid themselves."
>> I have some doubts about "only if", consider for instance removing dot
>> segments, which might remove a malformed part, if I recall correctly.
>
> Good point.

This also caught my attention. With ".." in the relative reference, some 
potentially invalid path parts get canceled out.


Some additional points:

The Introduction is (exactly?) the same as the abstract. That should change.

3.1 says: "all components except for the Path Component can be 
undefined." I'd change 'undefined' to 'empty'.

In the reference section, the list of URIs doesn't make sense. Put these 
in the text (or alternatively, make them real references, e.g.
"Mailing List Address of the mailing list of the IRI WG, 
<mailto:public-iri@w3.org>")

I'm looking forward to work on B.2, B.4, and B.5. I don't think B.3 is 
necessary.


Regards,    Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 01:36:10 GMT

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