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

HTML making normative reference to IRIBIS

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 11:00:48 -0700
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05A089BEEF@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/att-0670/iri-rewrite-draft

was a specific proposal for how to allow the HTML document to make normative reference to the IRI Bis document (based on HTML as of August 2009), which I think filled all of the requirements.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0882.html (February 2010) was an update.


Maciej:

> It is fine to call the types of resource identifiers that appear in HTML and other parts of the Web platform (CSS, XHR, SVG, etc) something other than "URL" or "URI". The name does not really matter for interoperability.

It isn't "fine".  Names matter here as well as anywhere else; names are what we use to determine compatibility and identity. We're not reinventing the web, just moving it forward without breaking everything.

>> However, for the subset of possible references that do happen
>> to match what are called valid URI references by RFC3986, then
>> we have already tested consensus and deployed many implementations
>> that conform exactly to the results given in RFC3986.  

> If these references are something other than URIs, and must be transcoded, why is it important that the subset that happens to look syntactically like a valid URI must be processed without that transcoding step? This implies that the transcoding must be the identity encoding in some cases. Where does that assumption come from?

I think the requirement as stated in http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/IriWorkGoals  is:


    Consistency of web and other Internet applications

        Interoperability between web applications (browsers, proxies, spiders, etc.) and other Internet applications which use resource identifiers (email, directory services) is important, and should be given equal (or nearly equal) priority as interoperability between web browsers. Recommended practice for web applications and other Internet applications should be the same - those creating web content should not be encouraged to create Resource Identifiers (whether called URLs, URIs, IRIs, Web Addresses) which would not function in other applications.


 
Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 18:01:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:52:01 GMT