Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-170, was: ISSUE-170 rel-uri-valid: Chairs Solicit Proposals

Henri: can you verify that you are OK with Julian's updated proposal?

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Oct/0107.html

If not, can you either suggest changes to that proposal that would make 
it acceptable to you or update your proposal to indicate the rationale 
for the differences?

If you are OK with Julian's updated proposal, we will issue a call for 
consensus on it.  If you update your proposal, I will ask Julian the 
same questions I just asked you.

- Sam Ruby

On 10/21/2011 09:48 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>  wrote:
>> I just recalled why it's ok for RFC 5988 not to say more about
>> case-sensitivity. In RFC 5988, extension relations are URIs, thus they are
>> restricted to US-ASCII anyway. I think we should mirror that, such as by
>> saying:
>
> Even if valid strings have to be constrained to the Basic Latin range,
> it doesn't follow that case-insensitive comparisons (under general
> Unicode collation) leads to only Basic Latin strings matching valid
> strings case-insensitively. So even if only ASCII strings are valid,
> failing to define ASCII-case-insensitive comparison is sloppy when the
> values to be compared consist of UTF-16 code units.
>
>>> DETAILS
>>>
>>> After "Extensions to the predefined set of link types may be
>>> registered in the Microformats wiki existing-rel-values page. [MFREL]"
>>> add: "Registered types must. Additionally, absolute URLs that do not
>>> contain characters U+0041 (LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A) through U+005A
>>> (LATIN CAPITAL LETTER Z) (inclusive) may be used as link types."
>>
>> s/Registered types must.// (that wasn't intended, right?)
>
> Right.
>
>> s/absolute URLs/absolute URLs that only contain US-ASCII characters and/
>
> I don't have interest arguing that point either way, so OK.
>

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 18:52:52 UTC