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

Re: 3987bis issues

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:57:39 -0600
Message-ID: <4E441813.1070206@stpeter.im>
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 GMT

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