- From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:57:39 -0600
- To: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
Any feedback on these issues? On 8/2/11 4:06 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > 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 Thursday, 11 August 2011 17:58:07 UTC