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

IETF 80 IRI Working Group Meeting Minutes

From: Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 22:07:54 -0700
Message-ID: <4DE477AA.2070300@lookout.net>
To: public-iri@w3.org
Hello, apologies for the delay on these.  Please send any corrections 
directly to me.

Best regards,
Chris Weber, co-chair.



===================================
IETF 80 IRI Working Group Meeting Minutes
2011-03-30


===================================
REFERENCES

Jabber Log:  http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/iri/2011-03-30.txt

===================================
PARTICIPANTS

Martin Dürst
Dave Thaler
Thomas Roessler
Alexey Melnikov
Larry Masinter
Pete Resnick
Ted Hardie
Julian Reschke
Adam Barth
Roy Fielding
John C Klensin

===================================
ISSUES

1) IRI WG has a goal to allow HTML to reference the IRI document through 
an interface definition, but the HTML WG did not accept, as noted in 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/56 and at Ian Hickson's change 
proposal 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/0147.html and 
more at 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0124.html.  More 
discussion noted below in the NOTES section.

2) BIDI handling in RFC 3987bis is stil an open issue in addition to 
HTML compatibility.  Ted Hardie suggests there's a lack of connection 
with implementations.  Larry Masinter suggests that the implementers 
need to participate to resolve this issue.  Suggestions were made to 
move BIDI handling to a separate document.

3) The handling of domain names in the IDNA version transition was 
brought up. There was no further discussion.

4) Larry Masiniter mentioned another issue of "How IRIs sort out their 
reference in a consistent way".  This was not discussed or further 
clarified.

5) On the subject of RFC 4395bis the issue of "Consistency of scheme 
syntax definitions for URI<->IRI conversion" at 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/63 was brought up but not 
resolved.

6) On the subject of RFC 4396bis the consideration of scheme-specific 
lengths was brought up http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/48 
but not resolved.

===================================
ACTION ITEMS

1) <Dürst> Action item Thomas to set up a teleconference within a few 
weeks to have HTML5 and IRI WG exponents talk together.

===================================
NOTES

Peter Saint-Andre requested reviews for the recently closed issues #35 
and #18 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/35 and 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/18.  No objections were 
made.

Larry Masinter made a point that IRIs receive special processing when 
contained in documents with a specified encoding.  In cases where a 
document encoding is not specified, there is no ambiguity.

Peter Saint-Andre noted that XmlHttpRequest uses UTF-8 by default.

Alexey Melnikov noted that IMAP URIs contain an IMAP SEARCH criteria 
which includes a 'charset' parameter, allowing for any encoding to be 
used and specified.

There was discussion about getting more participation from the URI and 
IRI parser implementers from Microsoft, Google, Opera, Apple, and 
Mozilla.  Martin Dürst suggests that the subject of URIs/IRIs may not be 
a high priority for them.

There was discussion around of HTML5s approaching last call and how the 
IRI WG should speed up progress to meet their schedule deadlines.

Resnick responds that a "Way to move forward is to remove the parsing 
references bits from the spec and work with the HTML5 community to do 
that, and try to use a term other than 'references'."

There was a discussion around how Web browsers currently handle IRI, 
some suggesting it was a presentation layer but handling was identical 
to URIs under that.  Larry Masinter responded that this was not true in 
some instances such as the handling of IDNA.

Adam Barth said "HTML5 needs parse and address algorithm (breaking out 
the different syntactic pieces of an IRI) and then resolving a relative 
reference"
Julian responded that "RFC 3986 staes how to break down the components: 
http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.B"
Roy Fielding responded that "URI parsing ref algo and IRI parsing ref 
algo are essentially identical" and the URI spec assumes that you will 
pass to resolver.

Martin suggests there's a disconnect between HTML5 people hoping that 
the IRI WG would get these issues resolved, when the IRI WG people were 
hoping to get the HTML5 people more involved.

Regarding scheme-specific length limits in RFC4395 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/48 there was a point made 
that error handling for an unknown scheme type would be problematic.


===================================
END
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 05:08:25 GMT

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