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

Re: Reviewed charmod fundamentals

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 11:47:21 +0100
Message-ID: <143626809.20040306114721@w3.org>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org <www-tag@w3.org>

On Friday, March 5, 2004, 11:03:23 PM, Tim wrote:

TB> Per my action item, I reviewed the charmod fundamentals doc, at

TB>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-charmod-20040225

TB> I'm sending a bunch of corrections but almost all are editorial, or
TB> minor errors of fact, and not worthy of the TAG's time.

That is good to hear, but I have not yet completed my review and
already found a few things during the joint I18N/TAG meeting at the
tech plenary, so I am not wiling to give this doc a clean bill of
health until I am finished.

TB>  I really only
TB> found one thing that might be, and maybe it's a process not a TAG 
TB> issue.  In their Section 7

TB>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-charmod-20040225/#sec-URIs

TB> criterion C58 says:
TB>   Specifications that define  protocol or format elements
TB>   (e.g. HTTP headers, XML attributes, etc.) which are  to be interpreted
TB> as URI
TB>   references (or specific subsets of URI references,  such as absolute
TB> URI references,
TB>   URIs, etc.) SHOULD use  Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)
TB> [I-D IRI] (or
TB>   an appropriate subset thereof).   C059   [S]   Specifications MUST
TB> define when the
TB>   conversion from IRI references to URI references (or subsets  thereof)
TB> takes place,
TB>   in accordance with Internationalized Resource  Identifiers (IRIs)
TB> [I-D IRI].

TB> Er, can this doc go to recommendation with IRIs still uncooked?

Well, its not going to Rec right now. Its a WD, and going to Last
Call will be the next step, then CR.

WebArch was able to go to last call with 2396bis 'uncooked', referring
to an Internet Draft rather than a standards track RFC because we
preferred it;i see no reason that Charmod can't do the same.

TB>  I
TB> would probably agree with the spirit of this criterion if we knew a
TB> little bit more about IRIs. -Tim

That sounds woefully vague and obfuscatory. Its not a Delphic oracle.
You can read the text of what will be the IRI Standards-Track Proposed
Standard RFC just like you can read the text of what will be the URI
Standards-Track Proposed Standard RFC.




-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Saturday, 6 March 2004 05:47:21 GMT

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