W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > March 2011

LEIRIs and new editions [was: [iri] #30: check leiri definition reference to iri syntax]

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:25:26 -0500
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA024D846A@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, 2011 March 10 1:53
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-iri@w3.org; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [iri] #30: check leiri definition reference to iri syntax
>
> . . .
> An official draft with this change will appear at
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-04 some time next
> Monday (March 14). 

Reading Martin's email, I found myself a bit confused at first.

We have an agenda item that says:

  We plan to issue the following spec editions referencing LEIRIs:

  * XML 1.0 6th Edition
  * XML 1.1 3rd Edition
  * XInclude 3rd Edition

  . . .  XLink 1.1 is already leirified.

What do we mean by that?

When I look at the "already leirified" XLink 1.1, it references
our WG Note defining LEIRIs at http://www.w3.org/TR/leiri.


So is this what we are planning to do under the above referenced
agenda item?

The other thing we might have meant is that we were going to
reference 3987bis, but that is just a draft--and one that has
a history of never going anyway fast--so I don't think we want
to do that.

I know the TAG asked us if the LEIRI definition in IRIbis was
good enough for us, and at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jul/0024

we answered that it was and that:

 should the wording currently in
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-00#section-7.1

 ever end up in an RFC, it would be sufficient to allow us
 to replace our LEIRI WG Note with a reference to that wording.

but it doesn't look like that wording will end up in an RFC
any time soon, so I assume we plan to continue to refer to
our LEIRI WG Note in the new editions.

That does match other WG members expectations?

paul



Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 14:26:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 March 2011 14:26:20 GMT