W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2009

Re: [hybi] ws: and wss: schemes

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:08:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4AA246C9.5060002@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: URI <uri@w3.org>, "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> ...
>> Just define a URI scheme; use of ws IRIs will be defined automatically 
>> in terms of RFC 3987 (IRI experts, please correct me if I'm wrong).
> 
> That's what I thought I had done; since you disagree that I had done that, 
> please provide the copy that you believe would do the job, so that we can 
> stop dancing around playing "warmer/colder" with this text.
> ...

I'm not going to write the spec for you.

A definition of a URI describes it's ASCII-based syntax, it's purpose, 
and how it's used in the protocol. I think that's pretty clear from RFC 
4395.

 > ...
>> The source file that you feed into xml2rfc is an XML file using the 
>> RFC2629bis syntax. You control that file. Put into it what you need.
> 
> There's no such file; the XML is generated by a script and posted straight 
> to the xml2rfc Web service. I have every intention of keeping this as 
> automatic as possible; I already have to go out of my way to make the 
> references to [WEBADDRESSES] and [HTML5] work, I really don't want to have 
> to start doing the same for IETF documents when I don't actually have to.

Well, you asked how to do it, and I explained how it can be done. 
Apparently you're not happy with the answer, but that's all I can do 
from here.

>>> I've read this, but as far as I can tell, "Always UTF-8" and "See IRI" 
>>> are both complete and accurate ways of addressing this.
>>>
>>> Since apparently neither of these options satisfies you, could you state
>>> exactly what literal text would satisfy you?
>> I already pointed you to RFC 5092 as relatively recent example, see 
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5092#section-8>.
> 
> I tried following the lead given in that draft, but it didn't satisfy you. 
> Could you provide literal text that would satisfy you?

By putting in "See RFC3987"? See Joseph's reply to that, and in 
particular his proposal in 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2009Sep/0001.html>.

BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 5 September 2009 11:09:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:42 GMT