W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > October 2004

Closing Issue 502 ( was RE: Issue 502 is closed )

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 04:39:58 -0700
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633803A29002@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, "I18n WSTF" <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>, <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
Cc: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlp-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xmlp-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Duerst
> Sent: 07 October 2004 23:58
> To: Yves Lafon; I18n WSTF
> Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 502 is closed
> 
> 
> Hello Yves, others,
> 
> This is the official response of the I18N WG (WS Task Force) to
> your response on your issue number 502.
> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x502
> 
> At 20:22 04/09/24 +0200, Yves Lafon wrote:
> >On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, A. Vine wrote:
> >
> >[issue 502 [1] covers the points 5 and 6 of your email [2]. ]
> >
> >The XMLP WG decided to close issue 502 with the following resolution:
> >
> >point 5:
> >The following text was added to section 4.2.2:
> ><<<
> >The value of the resource attribute information SHOULD be a 
> URI Reference 
> >as defined in RFC 2396 including ammendments to that 
> definition found in 
> >RFC 2732.
> 
> This would rule out IRIs. But we explicitly asked for allowing IRIs.
> It is unclear to us why this was rejected, and we would have to object
> to such a decision.

Dear Martin and I18N,

Regarding issue 502[1], the XMLP Working Group has amended section 4.2.2
if the Resource Representation SOAP Header Block specification to read:

"The type of the resource attribute information item is xs:anyURI. The
value of the resource attribute information item is a URI that
identifies the Web resource whose representation is carried in the
rep:Representation element information item parent of the resource
attribute information item. NOTE: the use of the xs:anyURI type
anticipates the possibility that in future schemes will be developed
that use IRI rather than URI naming for resources."

We trust this addresses your concern about allowing IRIs in the resource
attribute.

Regards

Martin Gudgin
For the XMLP WG

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x502
Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 11:40:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:28 GMT