RE: Proposed resolution of HRRI/IRI discussion

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Duerst
> Sent: Saturday, 2007 October 13 20:22
> To: Henry S. Thompson; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org; public-iri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution of HRRI/IRI discussion

> I just have submitted draft-duerst-iri-bis-01.txt, which is available
> e.g. at 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-bis-01.txt.
> 
> I created a whole new section for "Legacy Extended IRIs", Section 7.
> I adopted your name, which is fine with me, and much of your text.
> However, I reorganized the material a bit, creating a section
> that deals strictly with the syntax definition (7.1), a short
> section on conversion (7.2), and rather long section discussing each
> of the character groups that are allowed in Legacy Extended IRIs,
> but not in IRIs, including the problems these characters may create.
> (I just noticed that the bullet points for that list are missing,
> I'll fix that the next time round).
> 
> I'd appreciate any and all comments, from the XML Core WG and 
> otherwise, on this new section and otherwise. Please note that
> the more comments we get, the sooner we can be sure that the
> updates we did are about right.

Martin,

Richard Tobin has reviewed the LEIRI section of your draft
and makes the following comment for the XML Core WG.  We'd
be interested in your reply.

paul

------

I have compared Martin's text with our earlier discussions, 
and it seems to match with one exception:  he excludes all 
of FFF0-FFFF, instead of just FFFE and FFFF.  He has a note 
"U+FFF0-FFFF: TODO:  Check, give these a name, and explain".

I'm not sure what the issue is with these characters, but 
to achieve our aim of not making a normative change to 
XML (etc), we need to allow FFF0-FFFD, no matter how stupid 
they are.

If we resolve this point, I think we could abandon our own 
efforts and refer to LEIRIs in our specs.

-- Richard

Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 15:15:13 UTC