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: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:12:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30207DE5D7F@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 2007 June 20 15:24
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM; John Cowan; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: HRRI questions [was: Minutes for XML Core WG 
> telcon of 2007 June 20]
> 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.  

OK, does anyone on the WG object to going the Proposed 
Standard route?

> >
> > 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.

What we currently have in the draft ID is:

   Conversion from a Human Readable Resource Identifier to an IRI or a
   URI MUST be performed only when absolutely necessary and as late as
   possible in a processing chain.  In particular, neither the process
   of converting a relative Human Readable Resource identifier to an
   absolute one nor the process of passing a Human Readable Resource
   Identifier to a process or software component responsible for
   dereferencing it SHOULD trigger percent encoding.

How should we fix this paragraph?

Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 15:15:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:38 UTC