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

RE: Proposed resolution of HRRI/IRI discussion

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:22:01 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20071102161606.0b338890@localhost>
To: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, "Richard Tobin" <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Cc: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, <public-iri@w3.org>

At 22:25 07/11/01, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> 
>> I'm about to hop a plane, but I don't think XPointer 
>> is a problem since it already refers to IRIs and
>> talks about escaping--see
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/#escaping
>
>Is this the thing Konrad raised about RFC 2732 and square brackets for
>IPv6 addresses?

Yes.

>If so, I haven't quite grasped what the problem is.  Is it just that
>people before 2732 could get away with using unescaped square brackets
>in (never standardised) XPointer fragments?

In RFC 2396 times, '[' and ']' were not allowed anywhere in an URI.
With RFC 2732, they became okay in IPv6 literals.
In RFC 3986/3987, they still only are allowed in IPv6 literals.

My understanding was that one of the motivations behind Legacy Extended
IRIs was to allow as little escaping as possible e.g. in XPointers.
But '[' and ']', while as far as I understand being reasonably frequent
in XPointers, are not allowed in the fragment part of a Legacy Extended
IRI. If that's fine with you, that's fine with me, but please check.

Regards,    Martin.



#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 08:44:13 UTC

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