W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2005

Re: Internationalized e-mail addresses in "tag" IRIs

From: Tim Kindberg <timothy@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:54:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4353D74A.50408@hpl.hp.com>
To: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
CC: URI Interest Group <uri@w3.org>

I agree that tag IRIs are highly desirable in principle. I tried to move 
to them some time ago but got stuck in very deep mud.  See the archives 
of this list.



Etan Wexler wrote:

> Al Gilman wrote to the URI Interest Group’s mailing list
> (<mailto:uri@w3.org>) on 13 October 2005 in “RE: RFC 2822 email
> addresses in tag URIs” (<mid:p06110401bf7405f47ab2@%5B10.0.1.2%5D>,
> <http://www.w3.org/mid/p06110401bf7405f47ab2@%5B10.0.1.2%5D>):
>> Tim [Kindberg] is suggesting we limit the range of addr-spec allowed 
>> in 'tag' URIs so that they are legible.
> Is that a problem? My view is that the motivation toward legibility and
> tractability must eventually bring the “tag” scheme to a full
> internationalization. (I am eager to know what Tim Kindberg thinks of
> this view.)
>> [Larry Masinter is] suggesting [that] it's no problem for one speaker 
>> group to be able to tag things with addr-spec values that plainly say 
>> "this is mine" and others to be limited to marking things with 
>> inscrutable Romanji machine codes.
>> For the latter groups, this scheme would offer no advantages over a 
>> hash such as provided in the opaquelocktoken scheme.  For the elect, 
>> it gives tags that are friendly names, too.
> You state the situation well.


Tim Kindberg
hewlett-packard laboratories
filton road
stoke gifford
bristol bs34 8qz

voice +44 (0)117 312 9920
fax +44 (0)117 312 8003
Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 17:30:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC