W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: rdf-charmod-uris closed over objection [Fwd: IRI section needs too much testing to go in Fundamentals]

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:18:35 +0100
To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD898A57F.367D334C-ONC1256E5D.005946AB-C1256E5D.00387A5E@agfa.com>


Brian, I do not wish to have my opposition recorded as an
objection in the issue tracking document.

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/


                                                                                                                                       
                      Brian McBride                                                                                                    
                      <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.        To:       Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>                                                
                      com>                     cc:       www-rdf-comments@w3.org, Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA, Aaron    
                                                Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>                                                                
                      19/03/2004 10:58         Subject:  Re: rdf-charmod-uris closed over objection [Fwd: IRI section needs too  much  
                                                testing to go in Fundamentals]                                                         
                                                                                                                                       






Dan Connolly wrote:

> I note that this issue...
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-charmod-uris
> was closed over the objection of 3 WG members, but it's
> not listed among the objections
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#Objections
>
> Please fix.

Hi Dan,

Speaking for myself, whilst I disagreed with the WG decision at the
time, it was not and still is not my intention to lodge a formal
objection.  The record shows accurately that I opposed the decision.  It
does not show that I objected to it.  As I recall the process document
requires me to jump through some hoops to lodge a formal objection.  I
did not jump those hoops.

Of course, I want the record to be accurate.  Whilst I have taken care
in the past to check with folks at varous stages of the process that all
objections were accurately recorded, if Jos or Aaron feel that they did
wish to formally object and this is not properly recorded then I will
amend the issue tracking document.

Jos, Aaron - do you wish to have your opposition recorded as an
objection in the issue tracking document?

Brian


>
> Aaron, Jos, Brian, you might consider re-iterating your position
> as a comment on the charmod spec, ala the attached.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> IRI section needs too much testing to go in Fundamentals
> From:
> connolly@w3.org (Dan Connolly)
> Date:
> Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:52:32 +0900
> To:
> www-i18n-comments@w3.org
>
>
> This is a last call comment from Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org) 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: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
> Submitted on behalf of (maybe empty):
> Comment type: substantive
> Chapter/section the comment applies to: 7 Character Encoding in URI
References
> The comment will be visible to: public
> Comment title: IRI section needs too much testing to go in Fundamentals
> Comment:
> The technology in this section is much less mature than, for example,
> the excellent and much-needed definitions in section 3 (character
encoding scheme and such).
>
> Those terms merit W3C Recommendation status immediately, if not sooner.
> Please don't put this material in the critical path for getting
> them done.
>
> The text of section 7, esp "Specifications that define protocol or format
elements (e.g. HTTP headers, XML attributes, etc.) which are to be
interpreted as URI references (or specific subsets of URI references, such
as absolute URI references, URIs, etc.) SHOULD use Internationalized
Resource Identifiers (IRIs)  (or an appropriate subset thereof)." merits
> a substantial Candidate Recommendation phase.
>
> The RDF Core WG had a related issue...
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-charmod-uris
> but never reached consensus on it. The issue was closed
> consistently with the text above, but over the objections
> of two implementors and the WG chair.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0474.html
>
> The W3C TAG has studied the issue at length
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#IRIEverywhere-27
> and has found a variety of positions on the issue,
> none of which is the clear winner yet.
> (personally, I think this is a pretty good summary of
> the options: http://esw.w3.org/topic/IRIEverywhere)
>
>
> Please strike section 7 from this document and move it elsewhere.
>
>
>
> Structured version of  the comment:
>
> <lc-comment
>   visibility="public" status="pending"
>   decision="pending" impact="substantive" id="LC-">
>   <originator email="connolly@w3.org"
>       >Dan Connolly</originator>
>   <represents email=""
>       >-</represents>
>   <charmod-section
href='http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-charmod-20040225/#sec-URIs'
>     >7</charmod-section>
>   <title>IRI section needs too much testing to go in Fundamentals</title>
>   <description>
>     <comment>
>       <dated-link date="2004-03-18"
>          href="
http://www.w3.org/mid/219119054.20040318235232@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp"
>         >IRI section needs too much testing to go in
Fundamentals</dated-link>
>       <para>The technology in this section is much less mature than, for
example,
> the excellent and much-needed definitions in section 3 (character
encoding scheme and such).
>
> Those terms merit W3C Recommendation status immediately, if not sooner.
> Please don&#x27;t put this material in the critical path for getting
> them done.
>
> The text of section 7, esp &#x22;Specifications that define protocol or
format elements (e.g. HTTP headers, XML attributes, etc.) which are to be
interpreted as URI references (or specific subsets of URI references, such
as absolute URI references, URIs, etc.) SHOULD use Internationalized
Resource Identifiers (IRIs)  (or an appropriate subset thereof).&#x22;
merits
> a substantial Candidate Recommendation phase.
>
> The RDF Core WG had a related issue...
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-charmod-uris
> but never reached consensus on it. The issue was closed
> consistently with the text above, but over the objections
> of two implementors and the WG chair.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0474.html
>
> The W3C TAG has studied the issue at length
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#IRIEverywhere-27
> and has found a variety of positions on the issue,
> none of which is the clear winner yet.
> (personally, I think this is a pretty good summary of
> the options: http://esw.w3.org/topic/IRIEverywhere)
>
>
> Please strike section 7 from this document and move it elsewhere.
> </para>
>     </comment>
>   </description>
> </lc-comment>
Received on Saturday, 20 March 2004 11:20:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:20:08 UTC