W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: IRI draft refresh and timeline

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:42:06 +0900
Message-Id: <>
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Cc: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

Hello Paul,

This is a somewhat more general mail.

At 23:42 08/07/28, Grosso, Paul wrote:
>1.  I see that the first sentence of 7.1 still refers to IRIs instead
>of IRI-reference as we requested at
>2.  I see that there is still no mention of the acronym LEIRI.  

These should be done by now, but please check.

>The XML Core WG has had about a half dozen specs on hold awaiting
>a referenceable IRI-bis, some for over a year.  Last December at
>your email implied that IRI-bis would be in last call in January
>or February.  We advanced several specs with this understanding,
>and now they are in limbo waiting until IRI-bis is referenceable.
>At our next XML Core telcon, it is my duty as chair to ask the WG 
>if we think it is time to publish what is effectively section 7 
>of your latest draft and/or some modification of our previous HRRI
>draft as a W3C WG Note so that we can move ahead.

Given that the biggest imponderabilium for the advancement of iri-bis
is the progress of the update of IDNA, it is very difficult to make
any clear predictions. So a WG Note as an interim measure is indeed
something that might be considered. However, if this is done, it
should be done very carefully:

- Use the current text in section 7 rather than some previous text.
  A lot of work has been done on it since we started from the HRRI draft.
  I'm happy to donate whatever text in that section that I wrote,
  and the rest is from members of your group anyway. I'm also happy
  to become a coauthor if you think that's helpful, and happy not
  to become a coauthor if you think that's preferable.
- Make sure that the new Note will work with an eventual update of
  RFC 3987. I really don't like comments such as "but that document
  says RFC XXXX, so this is not compatible with RFC YYYY" in all
  those cases where RFC YYYY is just an update of RFC XXXX, and
  the technologies involved should be orthogonal.
- Make sure that the new Note can exist by itself (on the (odd, I hope)
  chance that the IETF kills LEIRIs in my present draft), or can be
  changed to a simple forward pointer to the new RFC once that's out,
  as well as after that allowing the specs in the XML family to directly
  point to the new IRI spec when they are updated again.

Independent of whether you decide to work towards a Note, I really
would like to repeat my requests in the second half of
- Tests: I have a framework to generate tests involving all kinds
  of languages and encodings; you just need to give me some seed
  material. Tests are really important for moving the IRI spec to
  the next step, and they are needed before publication, not afterwards.
- Reading and commenting on the whole of the current IRI draft.
  I know you have repeatedly and carefully examined section 7,
  but I really would like you to help with reviewing the rest of
  the document, because after all, XML technologies are using IRIs
  and so any aspect of the IRI draft can affect them.
Many thanks in advance!

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 Monday, 4 August 2008 05:44:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:39 UTC