[i18n-activity] Question: is `id` in 7.2.2.1.1 the same as TD `id`? (#1524)

aphillips has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity:

== Question: is `id` in 7.2.2.1.1 the same as TD `id`? ==
## Proposed comment

7.2.2.1.1 Creation
https://w3c.github.io/wot-discovery/#exploration-directory-api-things-creation

> A TD that has an id MUST be submitted to the directory in the body of an HTTP PUT request at /things/{id} endpoint, where id is the unique TD identifier, present inside the TD object. An [Anonymous TD](https://w3c.github.io/wot-discovery/#dfn-wot-anonymous-thing-description) is handled differently; see below. The request SHOULD contain application/td+json Content-Type header for JSON serialization of TD. The TD object is validated in accordance with [7.2.2.1.6 Validation](https://w3c.github.io/wot-discovery/#validation). Upon successful processing, the server MUST respond with 201 (Created) status.

WOT-Description says that the `id` is of type `anyURI`, but here the `id` is inserted as a path element. This suggests that the `id` is more of a name token (a URI would have its URI syntactical bits URL-encoded, right?). I'm trying to gauge where non-ASCII can get in here and if so how it will be represented? 


## Instructions: 

This follows the process at https://w3c.github.io/i18n-activity/guidelines/review-instructions.html

1. Create the review comment you want to propose by replacing the prompts above these instructions, but **LEAVE ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS INTACT** 

2. Set a label to identify the spec: this starts with s: followed by the spec's short name. If you are unable to do that, ask a W3C staff contact to help.

3. Ask the i18n WG to review your comment.

4. After discussion with the i18n WG, raise an issue in the repository of the WG that owns the spec. Use the text above these instructions as the starting point for that comment, but add any suggestions that arose from the i18n WG. In the other WG's repo, add an 'i18n-needs-resolution' label to the new issue. If you think any of the participants in layout requirements task force groups would be interested in following the discussion, add also the appropriate i18n-\*lreq label(s).

5. Delete the text below that says 'url_for_the_issue_raised', then add in its place the URL for the issue you raised in the other WG's repository. Do NOT remove the initial '§ '. Do NOT use \[...](...) notation – you need to delete the placeholder, then paste the URL.

6. Remove the 'pending' label, and add a 'needs-resolution' tag to this tracker issue. 

7. If you added an \*lreq label, add the label 'spec-type-issue', add the corresponding language label, and a label to indicate the relevant typographic feature(s), eg. 'i:line_breaking'. The latter represent categories related to the Language Enablement Index, and all start with i:.

8. Edit this issue to **REMOVE ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS & THE PROPOSED COMMENT**, ie. the line below that is '---' and all the text before it to the very start of the issue.

---


**This is a tracker issue.** Only discuss things here if they are i18n WG internal meta-discussions about the issue. **Contribute to the actual discussion at the following link:**


§ url_for_the_issue_raised


Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1524 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Thursday, 28 April 2022 19:30:27 UTC