W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2004

Re: draft-kindberg-tag-uri

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 09:56:57 +0900
Message-Id: <>
To: Tim Kindberg <timothy@hplb.hpl.hp.com>(by way of Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>), uri@w3.org

Hello Tim,

At 10:58 04/09/04 +0900, Tim Kindberg wrote:

>Hi Martin,
>Thanks for the detailed comments. I'll look over all the suggested 
>clarifications to the text in general but it's the URI/IRI issue that most 
>concerns me. Every time I think I've understood the right way to treat 
>this issue, you say something that suggests otherwise. It's happened again.
>In a previous exchange with you I wrote:
> > I was looking for a way for tag to be internationalisation-compatible
> > while adding as little as possible to the spec except in the way of
> > external references to internationalisation specs. I had a closer look
> > at draft-duerst-iri-09 with that in mind.
> >
> > In Section 3 intro and 3.1, you distinguish identifiers that are used
> > for resource retrieval from those that aren't.  Then in 5.1 you make
> > the distinction again, in the context of string comparison.
> >
> > Well, tags are identifiers that are *not* used for resource retrieval.
> > So it seems to me that we fall squarely into the class of identifiers
> > for which it is "not necessary to map the IRI to a URI".
> >
> > This matches my conception of how to treat tags from an
> > internationalisation perspective:  they always and only appear in their
> > IRI forms. So a Chinese tag would look like the example I sent
> > previously -- as a string of Chinese characters (with our separators in
> > between). There is no need to map that into a (2396bis) URI.
> >
> > So I propose to add a little text on Internationalisation as an
> > addendum to our syntax, referring to your IRI draft and saying that our
> > domain name component may be replaced by a IDN (refer to RFC3490);
> > that, when the left -hand side of email addresses gets an international
> > standard, that could be used instead; and that the "specific" part of
> > the tag may be any string of "ipchar" (your draft).
> >
> > I don't think I need to mention percent-encoded UTF-8 (or such) at all.
> > I know the emphasis in the syntactic detail is then rather one-sided,
> > but I'm trying to be pragmatic.
>In response to that, you seemed to agree with me. But in your comments on 
>draft 06 below you have put pct-encoded syntax in!

Going back to previous (private) mail, it looks like I understood the
above paragraph about UTF-8 in the context of IRIs in the paragarph
before. In IRIs as such, in particular in cases such as TAG, there
is no need to talk about percent-encoding, although in IRIs in general,
percent-encoding is allowed.

>What is it I'm missing in thinking that (URI) tags containing pct-encoded 
>characters are:
>(a) self-defeating -- tags are supposed to be tractable for humans

yes. The pct-encoded in the tag URI syntax is only for defining tag
IRI syntax (see below). I have provided additional text in my comments
to make this clear.

>(b) redundant -- it's never necessary to turn a tag containing, say, 
>Chinese characters into URI form; we need be sure only that it's in 
>canonical form and thus comparable with other tags.

I more or less agree with you. The main reason for defining URIs
with pct-encoded octets is because in order to use tags with IRIs,
we have to define a tag URI scheme (there is no process to define
IRI schemes; IRI schemes don't exist independently of URI schemes).

And to define what is allowed and what is not in a tag IRI, we have
to do that by defining the syntax of tag URIs and relying on the
conversion at
to derive what are acceptable tag IRIs. The above cited section says
that the conversion from IRIs to URIs has two purposes:
a) Syntactic
b) Interpretational (for resolution)
You are correct that b) doesn't apply to tags, but a) still applies.

See also my comments to Larry's mail.

Regards,    Martin.
Received on Sunday, 5 September 2004 00:57:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:08 UTC