W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2002

RE: W3C WSDL WG: 6b. Define encoding for non-ASCII characters in request URL

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 18:06:28 -0700
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC1070620E9@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Jean, I can go either way: (a) include a tentative resolution in the
spec now and update later, or (b) leave the issue open for a while and
resolve it later all at once. Since we're not pressed to resolve this
issue right now, why don't we do (b) as you suggest.

--Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] 
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:00 AM
To: Jeffrey Schlimmer
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: W3C WSDL WG: 6b. Define encoding for non-ASCII characters
in request URL

Jeff,

I agree this ought be an easy issue. However [6] is in Last Call, and
contains a pretty strong requirement that "W3C specifications [...]
SHOULD
use Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRI) [2] (or an appropriate
subset thereof)." We seem to be (at least) some months away from Last
Call
ourselves, and I am wondering whether it is not more desirable to see
how
the landscape evolves and then make a more informed judgement. What do
you
think?

Jean-Jacques.

[6] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/#sec-URIs

Jeffrey Schlimmer wrote:

> PROPOSAL
>
> Until IRIs are standardized, follow URI Escaping as outlined XML
> Include.
>
> REFERENCES
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/cover.html
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-00.txt
> [3] ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2396.txt
> [4] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2718.txt?number=2718
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/
>
> EOF
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2002 21:06:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT