FW: Re: [EMMA] i18n comment: IRIs and URIs

 

I18N-7: ACCEPT

======================================================

 

A. From I18N:

 

email:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2007May/0007.html

At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0704-emma/

Editorial/substantive: S

Owner: RI

 

Location in reviewed document:

2.1 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-emma-20070409/#s4.2.5]

IRIs and URIs

 

Comment: 

[[A URI is a unifying syntax for the expression of names and addresses 

of objects on the network as used in the World Wide Web (RFC3986). A 

URI is defined as any legal anyURI primitive as defined in XML Schema
Part 2:

Datatypes Second Edition Section 3.2.17[SCHEMA2].]]

 

We are concerned that you are disallowing IRIs here. (Btw, we did
propose

that you reference RFC 3987 as part of the first comment in a previous 

review [http://www.w3.org/International/2005/10/emma-review.html], and
you 

agreed to implement that comment, but you seem to have overlooked this

aspect.) The XML Schema 1.0 definition of anyURI does not encompass IRIs


either (though this will be changed for XMLSchema 1.1).

 

We suggest that you adopt a definition like that of XQuery. The XQuery 

definition reads:

 

 

"Within this specification, the term URI refers to a Universal Resource 

Identifier as defined in [RFC3986] and extended in [RFC3987] with the
new 

name IRI. The term URI has been retained in preference to IRI to avoid 

introducing new names for concepts such as "Base URI" that are defined
or 

referenced across the whole family of XML specifications."

 

You do, btw, have a reference to RFC 3987 in the normative references, 

but nothing in the document links to that.

 

B. Minutes from discussion in the EMMA subgroup:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-mmi-wg/2007May/0054.html

 

C. Proposed Response:

 

ACCEPTED: There was no intention to disallow IRI's. We will add the 

proposed language from the XQuery definition to section 1.2.