W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > May 2002

no dependency on IRI draft

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 00:16 +0900
To: www-i18n-comments@w3.org
Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Jeremy Carroll)
Message-Id: <20020527151648.14BA0D04@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
This is a last call comment from Jeremy Carroll (jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com) on
the Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/).

Semi-structured version of the comment:

Submitted by: Jeremy Carroll (jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com)
Submitted on behalf of (maybe empty): RDF Core WG
Comment type: substantive
Chapter/section the comment applies to: 8 Character Encoding in URI References
The comment will be visible to: public
Comment title: no dependency on IRI draft
Comment:
The main concern of the RDF Core WG is section 8.
Any normative section of charmod MUST NOT depend
on the IETF IRI draft which is not finished and is not yet stable.

We draw attention to "SHOULD use Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRI) [I-D IRI]".
The IRI draft is only a draft, the reference to it is not normative, and the strength of this SHOULD dependency appears excessive ("not optional").
In particular, the IRI draft does not adequately address IRI equality (not merely functional
equivalence in retrieval). Moreover, the bidi section presents a learning curve which developers are unlikely to want to climb before IRI has consensus around it; We have found the text in Xlink section 5.4 and XML Erratum 26 adequately clear for some of the IRI questions, particularly those that are most pressing for RDF and believe that charmod should merely:
- reiterate such text;
- reiterate the early uniform normalization model for the iris when regarded as unicode strings


Structured version of  the comment:

<lc-comment
  visibility="public" status="pending"
  decision="pending" impact="substantive">
  <originator email="jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com" represents="RDF Core WG"
      >Jeremy Carroll</originator>
  <charmod-section
      href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-URIs"
    >8</charmod-section>
  <title>no dependency on IRI draft</title>
  <description>
    <comment>
      <dated-link date="2002-04-27"
        >no dependency on IRI draft</dated-link>
      <para>The main concern of the RDF Core WG is section 8.
Any normative section of charmod MUST NOT depend
on the IETF IRI draft which is not finished and is not yet stable.

We draw attention to "SHOULD use Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRI) [I-D IRI]".
The IRI draft is only a draft, the reference to it is not normative, and the strength of this SHOULD dependency appears excessive ("not optional").
In particular, the IRI draft does not adequately address IRI equality (not merely functional
equivalence in retrieval). Moreover, the bidi section presents a learning curve which developers are unlikely to want to climb before IRI has consensus around it; We have found the text in Xlink section 5.4 and XML Erratum 26 adequately clear for some of the IRI questions, particularly those that are most pressing for RDF and believe that charmod should merely:
- reiterate such text;
- reiterate the early uniform normalization model for the iris when regarded as unicode strings</para>
    </comment>
  </description>
</lc-comment>
Received on Monday, 27 May 2002 11:16:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:31 GMT