RE: [iri] #44: Reference Unicode TR 46, and if yes, how?


I think I understand the problem statement, but I don't think I agree with the solution.

Each application has to decide what kind of comparison is appropriate for the application, and comparison for the purpose of "caching" will be different from comparison for the purpose of "cache invalidation" or "deciding whether preloading the cache is useful".

And in any case, "caching" is on a protocol-by-protocol basis; caching for "http" vs "https" vs "ftp" (if that ever cached) would all be different.

So to the extent that there's  a reference to UTR 46 and RFC 5895, the reference would be in the comparison document...

Do you agree?



> On 11/9/11 4:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Peter,
>>
>> Let me say that a little more strongly.  URIs and IRIs need to be in 
>> some sort of reduced canonical form or basically all hope of 
>> comparing them (including for caching purposes) without some rather 
>> complicated algorithm disappears.


>> To the extent to which they are a 
>> good idea at all, mapping procedures like UTR 46 and RFC 5895 are 
>> useful for providing users with more convenience and flexibility.  
>> But, to the extent to which URIs and IRIs are going to be used 
>> between systems, used to identify cached
>> content, etc., they just don't belong in them. 

I think all of this belongs in the comparison document, now, and not 3738bis
  Worse, neither
>> UTR 46 nor RFC 5895 (especially the former) are general-purpose 
>> mapping/ equivalence routines.  They are specific to IDNA and, to a 
>> considerable measures, motivated by a desire to smooth out
>> IDNA2003 ->  IDNA2008 transition.
>
> <hat type='individual'/>
>
> You're preaching to the choir. :)
>
> I see no reason to reference either UTR 46 or RFC 5895 in 3987bis, but 
> other WG participants might disagree.
>
> Peter

It sounds like you both agree, and after reading through the original thread started by Julian <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2010Sep/0010.html> it seems this was originally a question for the Section 3.4 Mapping 
ireg-name, which has since been corrected.   The topic of 
canonicalization has been moved along with IRI comparison to draft-ietf-iri-comparison.

Best regards,
Chris Weber

Received on Saturday, 12 November 2011 03:22:48 UTC