Re: Are system identifiers already IRIs?

Norman Walsh scripsit:

> >    Systems accepting IRIs MAY also deal with the printable characters in
> >    US-ASCII that are not allowed in URIs, namely "<", ">", '"', space,
> >    "{", "}", "|", "\", "^", and "`", in step 2 above.  If these
> >    characters are found but are not converted, then the conversion
> >    SHOULD fail.  Please note that the number sign ("#"), the percent
> >    sign ("%"), and the square bracket characters ("[", "]") are not part
> >    of the above list and MUST NOT be converted.  Protocols and formats
> >    that have used earlier definitions of IRIs including these characters
> >    MAY require percent-encoding of these characters as a preprocessing
> >    step to extract the actual IRI from a given field.  This
> >    preprocessing MAY also be used by applications allowing the user to
> >    enter an IRI.
> 
> How does the XML Core WG feel about this interpretation?
> 
> Certainly, if we can comfortably conclude that everywhere we're
> thinking of using HRRIs (and everywhere we can imagine wanting to in
> the future) we can already say "it's an IRI", that simplifies things.

I'm in favor of this, particularly as it bypasses the waiting time
for HRRI to become a proper RFC.  But I don't quite see what language
to use to indicate that this paragraph (which does not have a
distinctive label, alas) should be in effect for XML, Namespaces 1.1,
XLink, etc. etc.

Can someone think up a proper invocation?

-- 
Clear?  Huh!  Why a four-year-old child         John Cowan
could understand this report.  Run out          cowan@ccil.org
and find me a four-year-old child.  I           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
can't make head or tail out of it.
        --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports

Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 05:23:29 UTC