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

Re: Use of IRIs in other specs

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:44:33 -0600
Message-ID: <501851C1.60003@stpeter.im>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
On 7/30/12 12:05 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> IRIs are widely deployed and referenced;
> RFC 3987 is referenced by 42 RFCs
> http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/citations-rfc3987.html
> 
> and many W3C specs:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=3987+rfc+site%3Awww.w3.org%2FTR
> at least some of which use IRIs or something like them as protocol elements.
> 
> The problem is that we have at least 3 different classes
> 
> 
> RFC 3987-compatible   <   LEIRI compatible (used in XML)  < browser-compatible (used in HTML and other browser implementations).
> 
> HTML5 allows use of document character set for query parameters, and a wide variety of characters not valid in LEIRI, but of course allows RFC 3987 compatible.
> LEIRI allows RFC 3987 but also spaces.
> 
> The question is whether any of the protocols that allow IRIs really need to maintain RFC 3987 compatibility, or would want to be compatible with browsers.
> I think "web applications" (i.e., things built with the HTML javascript-engine) want to be compatible with browsers.

Hi Larry, thanks for asking the question.

I looked at that list of 42 RFCs, and the one technology that I think
might have wide deployment and 3987-compatible usage is the Atom format
(RFC 4287 and friends). It is often consumed by browsers, but not
always. I'll post a query to the atom-syntax@imc.org list and report
here with my findings.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 21:45:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 31 July 2012 21:45:01 GMT