Re: Error handling in URIs

John Cowan wrote:
> Because there are a bunch of specs that define them either independently
> or by reference to XLink, which is not a plausible place to centralize
> them.  The original idea was to write a separate W3C document or RFC,
> but since the IRI RFC was being revised at the time, the opportunity to
> add LEIRIs to it was available.

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-duerst-iri-bis/> says: 
"Current state: dead". Any idea what's going on?

> I agree that having such a specification is a Good Thing.  There is
> no unique way to map a string of Unicode characters to a URI; IRIs use
> one approach, but if browsers use another, that should be written down
> in the IRI RFC or elsewhere.

I totally agree that if several specs share the same problem, the 
solution should be written down in a single place. That being said, I 
still don't see why it would be good to do in the IRI spec itself.

BR, Julian