Re: [iri] #5: Separate IRI from "presentation of IRI" as concepts

Thanks, Addison. I'd curious to hear Larry's thoughts on your proposal.

On 11/15/11 12:22 AM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
> Perhaps:
> 
> -- The relationship between the protocol element and its presentation
> becomes more complicated when dealing with the much larger set of
> characters than is allowed in the URIs defined by [RFC 3986]. --
> 
> While it's true that this is a "transition", the question is whether
> the presentation form is identical or is baked somehow. I tend to
> favor the least amount of presentational sugar possible, with the
> fundamental problem being that bidi URIs don't keep their elements
> visually grouped "properly". And actually I thought that was Larry's
> position (although he may have changed it).
> 
> Addison
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: "Martin J. Dürst"
>> [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011
>> 1:05 AM To: Peter Saint-Andre; Larry Masinter Cc:
>> public-iri@w3.org Subject: Re: [iri] #5: Separate IRI from
>> "presentation of IRI" as concepts
>> 
>> Hello Peter,
>> 
>> On 2011/11/12 8:35, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> <hat type='individual'/>
>>> 
>>> Section 1.1 of rfc3987bis has the following paragraph:
>>> 
>>> URIs are used both as a protocol element (for transmission and 
>>> processing by software) and also a presentation element (for
>>> display and handling by people who read, interpret, coin, or
>>> guess them). The transition between these roles is more difficult
>>> and complex when dealing with the larger set of characters than
>>> allowed for URIs in [RFC3986].
>>> 
>>> In Issue #5, Larry suggested a change...
>>> 
>>> "... processing by software) and also as the basis for
>>> presentation (for display and handling by people who read,
>>> interpret, coin, or guess them). The transition between protocol
>>> element and presentation is more difficult and complex when..."
>> 
>> It was my impression that Larry wanted to change the other way,
>> i.e. to strengthen the difference between the IRI itself (the
>> "thing", and maybe its electronic representation) and the
>> "presentation of an IRI" (visual or auditory).
>> 
>> Larry, can you tell us what you wanted?
>> 
>> Regards,   Martin.
>> 
>> 
>>> That seems reasonable to me. I see only a few related
>>> modifications:
>>> 
>>> 1. In Section 1.3, delete this definition:
>>> 
>>> presentation element: A presentation form corresponding to a
>>> protocol element; for example, using a wider range of
>>> characters.
>>> 
>>> 2. In Section 7.2, change this:
>>> 
>>> A person viewing a visual representation of an IRI
>>> 
>>> to:
>>> 
>>> A person viewing a visual presentation of an IRI
>>> 
>>> Peter
>>>

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 10:01:29 UTC