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

Fwd: RE: IAB discussions & IRIs

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 02:17:47 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20021126021725.04d909a0@localhost>
To: www-tag@w3.org, www-international@w3.org

FYI.

>From: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>
>To: "'Leslie Daigle'" <leslie@thinkingcat.com>, <w3c-policy@apps.ietf.org>
>Cc: <iab@iab.org>, <iesg@ietf.org>
>Subject: RE: IAB discussions & IRIs
>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 11:15:27 -0800

>Unfortunately, W3C groups have been using IRIs for
>quite a while now, and they are already
>part of several W3C technical specifications.
>For example, the W3C XML Schema anyURI data
>type: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#anyURI
>is defined basically as an IRI; any XML
>schema that has an "anyURI" data item is
>using IRIs, not URIs, unless they supply
>further restriction.
>
>It is a problem that there is not a stable
>document that can be used to reference the
>IRI concept, or one that notes what the
>actual interoperability concerns and deployment
>concerns might be.
>
>I think it would be a good idea to continue
>to review process IRI spec even while there is
>another document about generalized internationalized
>identifiers are being written, so that all of the
>issues specific to IRIs are reviewed:
>
>   Bidi and IRIs
>   IDN
>
>as well as the specific issues with
>Normalization.
>
>In a discussion with Ted Hardie, it sounded like some
>of the deployment issues in the current document
>are problematic enough that it might be useful
>to separate out
>
>   "IRI as a presentational string"
>from
>  "IRI as a protocol element"
>
>and to split the document, so that IRI uses
>in XML languages can be clarified, even if there
>are issues with uses outside of XML.
>
>Larry
>--
>http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 12:19:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:12 GMT