- From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 03:04:11 -0400
- To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- cc: draft-ietf-iri-3987bis@tools.ietf.org, public-iri@w3.org
--On Saturday, July 21, 2012 15:37 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
<stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
>...
> On 7/21/12 10:06 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> I hate this feature, and would love to get rid of it, but
>> let's acknowledge at least somewhere that it happens. That
>> is, the interoperability problems are real, but not
>> documenting it here doesn't solve the problem.
>...
>> I can see two choices that might work:
>>
>> * Any document format that wishes this kind of processing has
>> to say that what they are using aren't really IRIs, they're
>> funny strings that get preprocessed to turn them into IRIs or
>> URIs. * The IRI spec (continues to) explicitly defines this
>> document-charset-dependent behavior, but is more explicit
>> about the rules for where "document charset" comes from.
>>
>> I could go with either one of those. How do those seem to the
>> group?
>
> In the interest of calling a spade a spade, I'd be in favor of
> the first option: they're not really IRIs, but they can be
> turned into IRIs.
I agree, but couldn't the same argument be made about IRIs
themselves? I.e., "they aren't really URIs, but they can be
turned into URIs".
john
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 07:04:59 UTC