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

RE: [iri] #30: check leiri definition reference to iri syntax [copy to core wg forwarded by Liam]

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:22:54 -0400
To: "'Grosso, Paul'" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, '"Martin J. Dürst"' <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: <public-iri@w3.org>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002f01cbee10$83fe4e40$8bfaeac0$@gmail.com>
Getting a credible schedule for 3987bis as RFC is on the agenda, but I think having a credible date this millennium depends on having more volunteers to go through issues.

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: public-iri-request@w3.org [mailto:public-iri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 7:30 AM
To: "Martin J. Dürst"
Cc: public-iri@w3.org; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: [iri] #30: check leiri definition reference to iri syntax

Martin,

The XML Core WG confirms that your latest wording works for us.
Thank you for making this change.

The TAG has (long ago) asked the XML Core WG if we could "replace"
our WG Note on LEIRIs [1] with 3987bis.  In particular, we have
long planned [2] to issue new editions of XML 1.0, XML 1.1, Xinclude,
XML Base, and XLink 1.1 that refer to 3987bis rather than the WG Note
or duplicated text once 3987bis is a referenceable RFC.  For this
reason, we are wondering if you can give us a timeframe for when
3987bis might become an RFC.

thanks for any information you can give,

paul

Paul Grosso
for the XML Core WG

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-leiri-20081103/
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#leiri (member only)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
> Sent: Thursday, 2011 March 10 8:15
> To: "Martin J. Dürst"
> Cc: public-iri@w3.org; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [iri] #30: check leiri definition reference to iri syntax
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> That change seems fine to me, but I'll also check with the rest
> of the XML Core WG.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> paul
> 
> > -----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
> >
> > Hello Paul,
> >
> > Quite a while ago (sorry for the delay!), you requested a change in
> the
> > LEIRI definition of the IRI spec (see
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2008Mar/0000.html;
> this
> > was tracked as
> > http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/#leiri-relative-116 and
> later
> > as http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/30). I have now
> > implemented that change in my internal draft. This now says:
> >
> >     This section defines Legacy Extended IRIs (LEIRIs).  The syntax
> of
> >     Legacy Extended IRIs is the same as that for <IRI-reference>,
> > except
> >     that the ucschar production is replaced by the leiri-ucschar
> >     production:
> >
> > Please note that <IRI-reference> is not an XML start tag, but the way
> > ABNF rule names are indicated in many Internet Drafts. 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). Can you please check this change with the XML Core
> > WG? I have already closed the issue, but we can reopen it anytime if
> > needed.
> >
> > Many thanks and regards,    Martin.
> >
> > On 2011/03/10 15:01, iri issue tracker wrote:
> > > #30: check leiri definition reference to iri syntax
> > >
> > > Changes (by duerst@…):
> > >
> > >    * status:  new =>  closed
> > >    * resolution:  =>  fixed
> > >
> > >
> > > Comment:
> > >
> > >   Copying in here from the original mail from Paul Grosso:
> > >
> > >   >>>>
> > >   One could read section 7 to say that a LEIRI must match
> > >   the production for IRI which would mean there could be
> > >   no such thing as a relative LEIRI.  I'm quite sure we
> > >   don't want this.
> > >
> > >   I think section 7 needs to say:
> > >
> > >    The syntax of Legacy Extended IRIs is the same as that
> > >    for IRI-reference, except that ucschar is redefined....
> > >
> > >   since the production for IRI-reference is:
> > >
> > >     IRI-reference = IRI / irelative-ref
> > >
> > >   making IRI-reference the most inclusive one.
> > >   >>>>
> > >
> > >   This change has been made by changeset
> > >   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/changeset/35 (and
> > >   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/changeset/36).
> > >
> > >   I'm going to check with Paul whether this is okay that way.
> > >
> > >   Regards,   Martin.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> > #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 15:24:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 March 2011 15:24:23 GMT