- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:50:22 +0900
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, public-iri@w3.org
Hello Henry, At 19:45 07/11/19, Henry S. Thompson wrote: >Martin Duerst writes: >> Maybe something more explicit about the fact that Legacy extended IRIs >> and Legacy Extended IRI references work in parallel is necessary? > >Yes, that would probably be a good idea. Okay, I'll look into that. >One further issue has arisen in discussion within the XML Core WG: > >In section 6.2 of your draft, we find > > Intermediate software interfaces between IRI-capable components > and URI-only components MUST map the IRIs per Section 3.1, when > transferring from IRI-capable to URI-only components. This > mapping SHOULD be applied as late as possible. It SHOULD NOT be > applied between components that are known to be able to handle > IRIs. > >The Core WG likes that, and we wonder if there could be something >like that for LEIRIs as well. Would you consider adding an analogy of >that prose to section 7? I have to admit that I'm a bit reluctant here. On the one hand, it's never a good idea to mess around with data if you don't have to. On the other hand, some security-related software might e.g. just go in and change some characters (e.g. control characters) to percent-escapes, and I don't really feel like I don't want to discourage that. So I'm wondering whether a less strong wording would be more appropriate. Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 03:05:41 UTC