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

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

From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:58:12 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Go_rwek360yYNu876So0hNMbrjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>
Cc: public-iri@w3.org, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net> wrote:
> 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]?

None of those documents contains enough information to specify the
behavior we want to specify in enough detail.  It's not a matter of
closing a few tickets here or there to polish up the existing
document.  The document needs substantial work to add all the required


> 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 23:59:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:42 UTC