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

Aligning IRI specification with HTML5 (was Re: requesting feedback regarding HTML5 and RFC 3987)

From: Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:23:13 -0700
Message-ID: <4DE57861.3010601@lookout.net>
To: public-iri@w3.org
CC: 'Thomas Roessler' <tlr@w3.org>, 'Mark Nottingham' <mnot@mnot.net>
Thank you everyone for responding and bringing more context to the 
discussion.  Forgive me for treading so much old ground but as the new 
IRI WG co-chair I want to better understand the issues past and present. 
  In reviewing HTML5's ISSUE-56 at 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/56 there were three change 
proposals stated:

1) Larry Masinter [1]
2) Ian Hickson [2]
3) Adam Barth [3]

In the end Adam Barth's change proposal was selected and the issue was 
closed.  There was significant discussion around Ian Hickson's CP, and I 
did not see any objections to the content of Larry Masinter's CP, 
although there was an objection to relying on IRIBIS based on scheduling 
concerns/doubts (see 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0404.html).

Another thing I noticed in the discussions from April 2010 was that Ted 
Hardie (IRI WG co-chair at the time) had planned to open tickets in the 
IRI trac to capture Ian Hickson's CP requirements for the IRI 
specification - see 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1092.html.

 From what I can tell those tickets were never opened and I wonder if 
that had any impact on addressing them before Adam Barth gave his 
proposal in July 2010.

In any case, there were some replies that Roy Fielding's proposed text 
[4] was agreeable (see 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jul/0045.html) and 
could be used as the basis for another change proposal that could 
satisfy ISSUE-56 and bring the "URLs" section/definition of HTML5 and 
the IRI specification in alignment.

There was further discussion around the need for more testing and 
reverse engineering of Web browsers primarily to assess how IRIs were 
currently being parsed so that the IRI specification could align itself 
with such implementations during its revisions aimed at resolving 
HTML5's ISSUE-56.

My main question to the IRI and HTML WGs is - are there any objections 
to the IRI working group moving forward to leverage Roy's proposed text 
[4] and Larry's CP [1] in a way that satisfies Ian's requirements [2]?

And does that seem like a reasonable course of action, with a goal to 
get this together for review by the end of June, in a way that:

a) browser vendors would be willing to implement and;
b) representatives from at least two browser vendors would be willing to 
participate;


Best regards,
Chris Weber, IRI WG co-chair.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0882.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/0147.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jul/0035.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jul/0036.html
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 23:23:41 GMT

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