- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:29:07 +0200
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>, Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
On Apr 29, 2011, at 15:17 , Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: <snip/> >>> >>> [[ >>> Note: RFC2397's mapping of IRIs to URIs does not alter "%25" or >>> punycoded domain names, which means that the IRIs >>> <http://伝言.example/R&D> and <http://xn--9oqp94l.example/R%25D> will >>> both be transformed to the URI to <http://xn--9oqp94l.example/R%25D>. >>> RFC2397 section 3.2. "Converting URIs to IRIs" defines a function >>> which produces a single IRI for any URI. When minting IRIs for RDF, >>> it is encouraged to mint forms which can round trip to a URI form >>> and back. >>> ]] >> >> I think that the round-trip issue may not be clear (it is not 100% clear to me either:-). > > I, on the other hand, think the round-trip is a nice way to put it, and > quite well defined (although, see my concern #1 below). > An example of which IRI is produced from the URI above would help, though. > My understanding is that, concentrating on the IDN case, the IRI->punycode does not work in 100% cases, although the punycode->IRI does. So round-trip would then mean using the punycode. Is this what we want? Ivan >> Why not adding something like >> >> 'In other words, the use of %-escaped characters or punycode encoded IDN-s are strongly discouraged.' > > It definitely would not hurt. > > I have three concerns, though: > > 1/ from what I read in RFC3987, section 3.2, the mapping from URI to IRI > is not completely specified (refering to section 6.1 of that same RFC) > > 2/ the URI-to-IRI described in section 3.2 does not eliminate punycode. > So <http://伝言.example/R&D> is *not* round-trip-safe, but > <http://xn--9oqp94l.example/R&D> is. > > 3/ it should be made very clear that this is about minting IRIs from > scratch or from URIs, but *not* about converting IRIs (as IRIs that > would convert to the same URI are not consider equivalent). > > pa > > >> >> Ivan >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Ivan >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -Alex >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -ericP >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> -ericP >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 13:28:03 UTC