W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: HRRI questions [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 June 20]

From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:23:30 -0400
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Cc: Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070620202330.GR12168@mercury.ccil.org>

Grosso, Paul scripsit:

> The ID says something about becoming a BCP (Best Current Practice).
> Did you mean this?  

It doesn't make sense to me.  I think HRRI should be Proposed Standard,
the same as IRI.  

(New RFCs are always one of Proposed Standard, BCP, FYI, Experimental,
and Informational.  Proposed Standard can be changed to Draft Standard
and later to Standard; any RFC can become Historic or just be obsoleted
by another RFC.)

> It (now) seems to some of us that it may be reasonable
> for the process passing an HRRI to dereferencing software
> to do the percent encoding.

I guess that depends on whether the dereferencing software
speaks URI or HRRI.  If URI, then obviously the encoding has
to be done before passing it in.

Newbies always ask:                             John Cowan
  "Elements or attributes?                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Which will serve me best?"                      cowan@ccil.org
  Those who know roar like lions;
  Wise hackers smile like tigers.                   --a tanka, or extended haiku
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 20:23:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:37 UTC