- From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:58:12 -0700
- 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 details. Adam > 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