Re: Agreement on IRI "processing spec" moving to W3C

Sorry, this didn't come through very well. I got this message as a 
moderator, and tried to bounce it. Ideally, it would have said that it 
is from Frank Ellermann, via me. Instead it just set the Reply-to header 
to Frank, so please be careful when you want to reply to the list.

Regards,    Martin.

On 2011/11/24 15:51, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: [no that was Frank!]
> Chris Weber wrote in <4EC89A29.8070106@lookout.net>:
>
>> During IETF 82 an announcement was made that the IRI "processing
>> spec" would move to the W3C for creation as a self-contained
>> document. See <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/> for the
>> minutes.
>
>> Are IRI WG members in agreement on this decision?
>
> Hi, I failed to figure out what this is about, is it related to
> <URL:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-weber-iri-guidelines>, to
> <URL:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-iri-comparison>,
> or is it about something else not yet listed on the IRI WG page?
>
> For the "guidelines" and "comparisons" drafts I'd hope that they
> stay here (on this list). IMHO the "guidelines" are interesting
> enough to merge them into 3987bis proper.
>
> BTW, looking in the guidelines I-D I saw that leading and trailing
> white space (defined as SP, HT, CR, or LF) is stripped. Within
> the result only SP is considered as "substring split opportunity",
> if I understood it correctly. Is that as it should be? Why not
> stick to one concept of white space SP, HT, CR, or LF everywhere?
>
> Two "arbitrary Unicode strings" I have in mind are:
>
> 1: {WSP}http://example.net{WSP}http://example.org{WSP}
> 2: {WSP}<http://example.net/this{WSP}page>{WSP}
>
> {WSP} is some RFC 5322 folding white space magic used to split a
> long IRI (ignoring obs-FWS here), and "this page" should end up
> as "this%20page" in HTTP. The 2nd example uses angle brackets to
> delimit one IRI, the 1st example offers no delimiter and contains
> two IRIs.
>
> -Frank
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 07:10:11 UTC