W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2004

Re: Text for charmod last call comments

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:56:17 +0200
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <406e8194.1715575757@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Chris Lilley wrote:
>After considerable discussion, the TAG still feels that the maturity
>level of the IRI portion (good, needs substantial testing in CR) does
>not match that of the rest of the document (wonderful, should go
>straight to PR), as we noted in C119.

A number of W3C specifications require to generate or use URIs such as
<http://www.r%C3%A4ksm%C3%B6rg%C3%A5s.se> which according to RFC2396bis
is supposed to work. Where would I find implementation reports for this
aspect of URIs and the specifications that rely on such behavior? I am
sure there are such tests, it would otherwise be reasonable to ask the
TAG to strike all sections on URIs in their deliverables. But maybe I
miss something here, W3C documents such as

  http://www.w3.org/International/tests/sec-idn-1.html

clearly suggest that non-ASCII characters are allowed in URIs, documents
such as the one above and e.g.

  * http://www.w3.org/International/tests/test-idn.html
  * http://www.w3.org/International/tests/sec-idn-2.html
  * http://www.w3.org/2003/Talks/0425-duerst-idniri/slide12-0.html
  * ...

would otherwise all be non-conforming and confusing for the community
as in http://tidy.sf.net/bug/924809 for example, which, btw, seems to
suggest that, if non-ASCII characters are not allowed in URIs, there
is more interoperability for IRIs than for URIs.

>Please strike section 7 from this document and move it elsewhere to
>avoid delaying the rest of the document.

Which is not surprising, since the TAG considers IRIs not part of
what the TAG considers the web. I am however not sure I fully understand
the TAG's comment. It seems most reasonable to expect that removing that
entire section would invalidate reviews of the document and thus require
that the document goes back to WD status, not PR as you suggest.
Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 12:03:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:25 GMT