On 6/7/12 1:36 AM, Ted Hardie wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote: >> On 1/10/12 5:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> Section 1: >> >> [RFC3987] introduced IRIs by defining a mapping between URIs >> and IRIs; [RFC3987bis] updates that definition, allowing an >> IRI to be interpreted directly without translating into a URI. >> >> I actually don't see RFC 3987 requiring an IRI to be translated to URI >> under any circumstances. Current implementations of IRIs, under RFC >> 3987, work perfectly without mapping any IRI to URI. So I think this >> statement should be changed to: > > I read this text as referring to the applicability section in RFC 3987 > (Section 1.2), which does explicitly say "The compatibility is > provided by specifying a well-defined and deterministic mapping from > the IRI character sequence to the functionally equivalent URI > character sequence." This goes back to our long-running "Presentation > format/new protocol element type" discussion, in other words. > > I'm not honestly sure that we need this history in the document at > all. "This document updates the definition of IRIs originally > provided in RFC 3987" seems to sidestep the whole thing. Works for me. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 15:04:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 June 2012 15:04:32 GMT