- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:04:45 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Any reason why you don't reference the LEIRI Note [1]? It was
published by the XML Core WG in the face of delay to a new IRI RFC,
which will define Legacy Extended IRIs. This somewhat cumbersome name
is what XML, XLink, XML Base, the XML Stylesheet PI and so on all use
or will use for what is allowed when an IRI (or URI) (reference) is
wanted. A simple escaping algorithm is specified for converting LEIRIs
to IRIs, from whence the existing IRI can be converted to a URI (and
the conversions can of course be composed.)
At the very least, could you please consider replacing the "IRI
reference" with "LEIRI reference" in the last three of the four
bullets at the beginning of section 1. Any 3986-defined URI is a
3987-defined IRI, and every 3987-defined IRI is a LEIRI.
At best, please specify the mapping as a (much simpler) mapping of
arbitrary strings to LEIRIs, and let the LEIRI specification take over
thereafter.
ht
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-leiri-20081103/
- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
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 really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFJx7MdkjnJixAXWBoRAqTNAJ9fN/dxFy8QGDB1kRxtX5A/qiH5JgCfcIfS
fr/ZhwUHx6+W8Z7oVywt0aw=
=ZLxX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 16:11:30 UTC