W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > September 2009

RE: Issue 7426 (URI vs IRI) (was Action 97)

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:23:02 +0000
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
CC: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4F4942E980BD7147AE7F7D3DCB9CBA9F043CDA4E@TK5EX14MBXC138.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> Yves, Doug and Asir discuss on this on public mailing list to get a proposal ready for next week

Based on how similar issues were addressed in the WS-Addressing [1] and WS-Policy [2] Working Groups, here is a proposed amendment to Yves' proposal:

In WS-RA specs, globally replace URI with IRI with the following exceptions:

* Section X.X Namespaces. No need to say Namespace IRI here.
* xs:anyURI. This is a proper name, and the datatype accommodates IRIs.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0171 
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0073


Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yves Lafon
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 7:20 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Issue 7426 (URI vs IRI) (was Action 97)

After reading the status or URI/IR support in the specification linked to 
ours, it turns out that they all support IRIs apart from WSDL 1.0 which is 
seilent on the subject.
So we should do the following:

In all our spec, replace URI by IRI, and any reference to RFC3986 to 

Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 06:23:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:52 UTC