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: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:50:22 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20071120112348.03560170@localhost>
To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, public-iri@w3.org

Hello Henry,

At 19:45 07/11/19, Henry S. Thompson wrote:

>Martin Duerst writes:

>> Maybe something more explicit about the fact that Legacy extended IRIs
>> and Legacy Extended IRI references work in parallel is necessary?
>
>Yes, that would probably be a good idea.

Okay, I'll look into that.

>One further issue has arisen in discussion within the XML Core WG:  
>
>In section 6.2 of your draft, we find
> 
>    Intermediate software interfaces between IRI-capable components
>    and URI-only components MUST map the IRIs per Section 3.1, when
>    transferring from IRI-capable to URI-only components.  This
>    mapping SHOULD be applied as late as possible.  It SHOULD NOT be
>    applied between components that are known to be able to handle
>    IRIs.
>
>The Core WG likes that, and we wonder if there could be something 
>like that for LEIRIs as well.  Would you consider adding an analogy of
>that prose to section 7?

I have to admit that I'm a bit reluctant here. On the one hand,
it's never a good idea to mess around with data if you don't have to.
On the other hand, some security-related software might e.g.
just go in and change some characters (e.g. control characters)
to percent-escapes, and I don't really feel like I don't want
to discourage that. So I'm wondering whether a less strong
wording would be more appropriate.

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 Tuesday, 20 November 2007 03:05:46 UTC

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