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

Re: Fwd: Re: HRRIs, IRIs, etc

From: Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:10:04 -0700
Message-ID: <467997AC.4050209@yahoo-inc.com>
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
CC: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, public-iri@w3.org, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org

The following note is PERSONAL and does not represent the 
Internationalization Core WG.

Hi Paul,

I'm concerned about this discussion. I note that it has been a long 
standing (perhaps mythological) belief by many of us in the 
internationalization activity that XLink, XML Base, et al, represented 
an instance of IRI. I thought that was a Good Thing and have been 
distressed to discover that, rather than developing in the direction of 
normatively referencing IRI, the issue has become murkier.

In fact, CharMod says that XLink 1.0 is meant to be IRI:


I personally support Martin's desire to avoid fragmentation into various 
flavors of IRI by incorporating the necessary few minor changes into IRI 
itself. I'm not sure there is a sound case for IRI-with-space: I need to 
study your reasons further, myself.

 > I think this may be a "typo".  I believe we intended
 > this to become an RFC.

There is no such thing as "just an RFC". The document has to have an 
intended status (which is where you probably got your BCP). Your choices 
at the IETF include Informational, BCP, and standards-track. The closest 
to "just an RFC" is the "Informational" category. It's not uncommon to 
use this format for the purpose you have in mind.

I would tend, personally, to recommend against an Informational RFC, 
simply because the other xRI formats are on the STD track. The 
additional scrutiny of the STD track would, I think, benefit everyone 
involved. Note that the draft can be published as an RFC (and thus 
referenced) prior to attaining STD status.

I am sure that the Internationalization Core WG will shortly take up 
this topic (since it is already scheduled for our next teleconference). 
However, I felt that it would be wise to respond personally in advance, 
noting some concern exists. Also, I note that the I18N Arch WG is 
probably concerned here, since they maintain CharMod and CharMod-Resid.


Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 21:10:36 UTC

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