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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:17:04 +0200
Message-ID: <4E37B280.1000604@gmx.de>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, public-iri@w3.org
On 2011-08-02 03:35, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> ...
>>> 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.

That's how I always start my specs :-)

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

These are different things, and, as far as I recall, the distinction is 
important for the resolution process.

> 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>")

Irrelevant; these would be gone upon RFC publication.

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

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 08:17:38 GMT

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