W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2011

RE: F2F session on IRI and RFC 3023bis

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 12:01:36 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA02E7E821@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Noah Mendelsohn" <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> Of Henry S. Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, 2011 June 02 5:08
> To: Noah Mendelsohn
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: F2F session on IRI and RFC 3023bis
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Noah Mendelsohn writes:
> 
> > Henry: on the telcon last week you asked for "1/2 slot" on RFC
> 3023bis
> > and IRI. Time is very tight on the agenda, but I've tentatively put
> in
> > 30 mins as you requested. It's probably my shortsightedness, but
your
> > brief description wasn't sufficiently evocative to prepare a
detailed
> > agenda, require reading, action list, etc.
> 
> These two long-delayed RFCs interact with each other and with a number
> of our concerns.
> 
> Things to talk about:
> 
>  1) 3023bis [1] and fragment identifiers -- We discussed this a year
>     ago [2] and came to a conclusion, which Noah took an action [3] to
>     convey to the 3023 editors.  There was substantial pushback [4].
>     Jonathan reported on our further discussion to the 3023 editors
>     [5], setting out a number of alternative ways forward.  Chris
>     Lilley replied [6] stating a preference for option 2.
> 
>     But nothing has happened. . .  Time to put a TAG push behind a new
>     draft of 3023bis?
> 
>  2) 3023bis and Processor Profiles -- The XML Core WG has produced a

s/Core/Processing Model/

>     Last Call WD for XML Processing Profiles [7].  Would 3023bis be
>     the _architecturally_ correct place to connect this to XML itself?
> 
>  3) IRIbis and HTML5 'URIs' -- The HTML WG has removed all reference
>     to 3987bis, but the IRI WG is exploring ways to get back in:
> 
>       "In March 2011, the W3C's HTML WG made a decision to close
>        ISSUE-56 when the parties involved could not come to agreement
>        on aligning HTML5 with the IRI WG's revisions to RFC 3987:
> 
>       "http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
> html/2011Mar/0404.html
> 
>       "That decision effectively removed the HTML5 specification's
>        dependency on rfc3987bis.  It appears that this was done so
>        that the HTML5 specification could define how to translate
>        input strings contained in text/html documents into URIs.
> 
>        . . .
> 
>       "However, our understanding is that ISSUE-56 can be reopened if
>        new information emerges, such as "IETF completing production of
>        a document suitable as a formal reference".  And of course as
>        chairs of the IRI WG we would like to deliver such a document."
> [8]
> 
>     Can we help?  Should we try?

Also related to IRIbis is the XML Core desire to be able to reference
it normatively from the XML and related specs for the definition of 
LEIRIs as recorded at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2011Mar/0022
among other places.

paul


> 
> ht
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/latest.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/06/9-minutes.html#item03
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/441
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/449
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/476
> [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Nov/0095.html
> [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xml-proc-profiles-20110412/
> [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2011May/0026.html
> - --
>        Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of
> Edinburgh
>       10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-
> 4440
>                 Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
>                        URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
>  [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is
> forged spam]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQFN52D7kjnJixAXWBoRAn0sAJ9Y1JJwlUM8IXpIlm8bCvxa8bN33ACfXNoa
> CKpfIC04z+oGx8qKG7fB4oQ=
> =pc2L
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 16:07:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:35 GMT