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

3987bis issues (was: Re: opinions on tracker issues)

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:06:51 -0600
Message-ID: <4E3874FB.60900@stpeter.im>
To: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
Sorry, I should've mentioned that these are only issues related to
3987bis, not the other I-Ds under consideration...

On 8/1/11 11:31 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> <hat type='individual'/>
> 
> I had a chance to review the tracker issues on the trip back from IETF
> 81. Here are my opinions on most (but not all) of the open issues...
> 
> #8 - Agreed on removing "uniformly".
> 
> #10 - Agreed on removing "defined by".
> 
> #11 - Belongs in the processing spec (a.k.a. "Reschke-Weber"),
>       specifically in text about on the topic of pre-processing.
> 
> #12 - Referencing RFC 3986 seems appropriate.
> 
> #15 - Belongs in the processing spec or equivalance spec.
> 
> #25 - Belongs in the bidi spec.
> 
> #26 - I think it's fine to say this is legal but a bad idea.
> 
> #27 - Another instance of legal but a bad idea.
> 
> #28 - Belongs in the bidi spec.
> 
> #34 - I have no idea what the missing text is. We could say:
> 
>       In some situations, for presentation and further processing,
>       it is desirable to convert a URI into an equivalent IRI in
>       which natural characters are represented directly rather
>       than percent encoded. Of course, every URI is already an IRI
>       in its own right without any conversion.  However, this
>       section gives one possible procedure for conversion.
> 
> #36 - Belongs in the processing spec.
> 
> #38 - Belongs in the processing spec, on pre-processing.
> 
> #39 - Belongs in the processing spec, on pre-processing.
> 
> #40 - Belongs in the processing spec, on pre-processing.
> 
> #43 - I think we should say that systems accepting IRIs SHOULD NOT
>       perform special handling of the printable characters in the
>       US-ASCII range that are not allowed in URIs.
> 
>       (Maybe even MUST NOT.)
> 
> #44 - Agreed on adding a non-normative reference to TR 46.
> 
> #46 - We discussed this a bit in Quebec City. I'm of the opinion
>       that any length limits on IRIs or components thereof belong
>       in the specifications for application protocols that define
>       new URI/IRI schemes.
> 
> #47 - I think it would be good to add some guidance to implementers
>       regarding practical limits.  IMHO this advice belongs in the
>       processing specification
> 
> #66 - Isn't the question of punycode conversion a matter for
>       pre-processing of strings that will be fed to a DNS
>       resolver? If we need to say something about it, it seems to
>       belong in the processing spec.
> 
> #68 - This sounds like a post-processing guideline that belongs in
>       the processing spec.
> 
> Peter
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 22:07:19 GMT

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