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

Re: Comments on "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for new URI Schemes"

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:36:37 +0900
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: hardie@qualcomm.com, iesg@ietf.org, tony+urireg@maillennium.att.com, uri@w3.org, LMM@acm.org, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.swex3bxnx1753t@ibm-60d333fc0ec.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:08:52 +0900, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>  
wrote:

>
> On Aug 31, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>
>> Comments:
>>
>> [1] The passage "In particular, the mapping should describe the  
>> mechanisms for encoding binary or character strings within valid  
>> character sequences in a URI.". There is already a mapping mechanism in  
>> rfc 3987, sec. 3.1. It should be made sure in your document that the  
>> mechanism you are describing is compatible with the rfc 3987 mechanism.  
>> One reason for this is the role of UTF-8, which is handled in the  
>> mechanism of rfc 3987.
>
> Felix, all of your comments are requesting that the document defining
> the URI scheme registry should have dependencies on the IRI RFC.

Well, at least comment [5] is just a proposal for a rewording, without any  
reference to the IRI RFC:

[5] Sec. 5.4  URI Scheme Registration Template: Field "Encoding  
considerations.". Also
title of sec. 2.6 "Internationalization and character encoding". The way  
you use the
terms "character encoding" and "encoding" are maybe unclear. Proposal: You  
call this
section and section 2.6 "Character Encoding Considerations".

> That is neither appropriate nor necessary, since IRI already defines
> the mapping from URI to IRI in 3987. RFC 3987 is not at the same
> level of standardization as URIs: it is a new technology that is
> defined as a mapping from URIs, not something that determines the
> requirements for URIs.

In section 2.5, you write: "When describing URI schemes in which (some of)  
the elements of the URI are actually representations of human-readable  
text, ..."
For such URI schemes, you will need answers that *can* be provided by  
section 3.1 of RFC 3987.

In section 2.3 you wrote: "In particular, the mapping should describe the  
mechanisms for encoding binary or character strings within valid character  
sequences in a URI.". Again, RFC 3987 *can* be a mapping for a subset of  
URI schemes. I'm not proposing a dependency on it, but to make the  
relation to it clearer.

Cheers,

Felix


> Introducing dependencies on new technology
> RFCs is unwise given that the actual requirements for URI schemes
> are already defined in a full standard.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roy T. Fielding                            <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
> Chief Scientist, Day Software              <http://www.day.com/>
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2005 07:37:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:35 GMT