W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2002

Re: uri-comp draft necessary?

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 13:47:11 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>

At 10:59 2002 12 18 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:

>Tim Bray wrote:
>>If we believe this, we can discard the uri-comp draft entirely right now and I won't put any more work into editing it.  Do we believe this? -Tim
>Hmm.  The announcement (member-only) of advancement of Namespaces 1.1 to CR (http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xml-names11-20021218/) references uri-comp-2, right off textuality.com, in a normative kind of way.  A bit surprising I'd say -Tim

Just to make sure no one reads this too quickly (as I just did) 
and incorrectly, the Namespaces in XML 1.1 CR does NOT reference 
this document, normatively or otherwise.

It is merely the email *announcement* [0] and only in the context 
of the "Results of Last Call" where we had to document the formal
objection to using IRIs.  The XML Core WG had asked the TAG to 
comment on the use of IRIs precisely so that we could determine 
what to do about this objection, and the announcement says:

  There was one formal objection concerning the use of IRIS, at:

  The Working Group consulted the TAG on this question, and is following 
  the recommendation in their draft finding: 

    How to Compare Uniform Resource Identifiers

Not only is this just an announcement, so there is nothing "normative"
at all, but this reference was supposed to serve as merely a pointer to
a TAG finding.  Unfortunately, there is no published TAG finding yet
to reference.

I'm not sure why this document was referenced in the announcement.
The publicly available Disposition of Comments document at [1] has
a pointer [2] to the public response which mentions the TAG finding
without referencing this document.  

The announcement should probably have referenced [3] where it says:

  TB proposal: 
       1. We view IRI activity with favor. 
       2. Software should prepare for IRIs 
       3. IRI spec not done, practices such as XML 1.0 sys id seem
          to be reasonable, but they need to figure out how to bring
          themselves into sync with IRIs when they become available. 


  Action MD: Write up text about IRIEverywhere-27 for spec writers to
     include in their spec. 
  Action CL: Write up finding for IRIEverywhere-27 (from TB and TBL,
     a/b/c), to include MD's text. 

In any case, I would not take this questionable mention of the uri-comp 
document in the CR announcement as imposing any requirement on the TAG
in regards to this document.


[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2002OctDec/0054 (member only)
[1] http://www.w3.org/XML/2002/12/LC-xml-names11-doc
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2002Nov/0020
[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/11/18-tag-summary#IRIEverywhere-27
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 14:47:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:35 UTC