W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > July 2012

Re: IRI agenda items for IETF 84

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:02:16 +0900
Message-ID: <4FFD4F28.4030502@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
CC: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, public-iri@w3.org
Hello John,

Sorry I'm behind with my replies.

On 2012/07/10 1:39, John C Klensin wrote:

> If we are having a meeting, I'd like to have time to discuss the
> fork in the road among:
>
> (1) draft-ietf-iri-3987bis and the associated documents.
>
> (2) Approaches such as that represented by draft-klensin-iri-sri

I'll comment on this separately, following up to Dave's crucial comment.

> (3) An update to 3987 that preserves the "not a protocol
> identifier" and "every valid URI is a valid IRI" principles.  As
> far as I know, no one is arguing for this, but it is still a
> possibility.

"Preserving the 'not a protocol identifier'" isn't a possibility, for 
the simple reason that IRIs are defined as protocol elements already. 
The first line of the abstract of RFC 3987 says that, it's difficult to 
miss!

It would really help if you could actually read the documents you are 
trying to criticize, or at least their abstract, or at the very least 
the first line of the abstract, so I don't have to repeat this again. I 
already told you so in a mail just a few days ago.

> (4) Giving up, deprecating/obsoleting 3987, and moving on.

There are other specs that use RFC 3987, so deprecating it doesn't look 
like much of an option.

> I note that draft-ietf-iri-comparison seems intimately tied to
> (1).  The intent behind (2) includes standardizing information
> sufficiently that a simple XML structured comparison (i.e.,
> ignoring irrelevant white space) should suffice without
> identifier- or scheme-specific comparison rules.
> draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines would probably still be helpful,
> but some of the issues it addresses appear to me to disappear.
>
> It is not clear to me whether that discussion can more
> efficiently be held in Vancouver, by email, or by some other
> method.  I'll leave that question in your hands.

I hope we can make a lot of progress on what should happen to SRIs 
before Vancouver.

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 10:03:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 July 2012 10:03:01 GMT