Re: Reviewed charmod fundamentals

On Friday, March 12, 2004, 5:09:07 PM, Jeremy wrote:



>>Er, can this doc go to recommendation with IRIs still uncooked?  I 
>>would probably agree with the spirit of this criterion if we knew a 
>>little bit more about IRIs. -Tim

JC> See

JC> http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/SortByOriginator.html#C031
JC> (member link)

JC> which raised precisely this point (some years ago)
JC> I found the response satisfactory
JC> [[
JC> Our plan is that the IRI ID, referenced in this section, will have been
JC> submitted for Proposed Standard by the time CharMod moves to the next stage.
JC> ]]

My understanding is that both URI (2396bis) and IRI are 'in the queue'
for the RFC editor, who can fix up the normative reference from IRI to
2396bis once the latter is assigned an RFC number.

Tim - this was discussed at the joint TAG/I18N session at the technical
plenary.


-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group