RE: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iri-bis-02.txt

Hello Paul,

I'm very sorry to not answer you in a long time.
My day job and some other duties have been piling up,
and this week has been particularly stressful with
double the usual weekly lectures (fortunately over
this morning) and a severe cold with fever since
yesterday evening (under control with some pills).

At 23:48 07/12/20, Grosso, Paul wrote:
>Martin,
>
>The XML Core WG (including Henry) would like to retract
>that request made by Henry to which you refer so that
>there are no more open issues.

Thanks, fine with me.

>We furthermore request
>that you proceed with all deliberate speed in pushing
>this document to RFC status.

I plan to do so mostly in the first week of January,
typically the least busy week of the year in Japan.

>Given this, could you give us some idea when such an RFC
>may be referenceable by W3C specs so that we can make
>progress on these various new editions (there are about
>a half dozen specs awaiting this)?

As you may know, the IETF process isn't much more predictable
than the W3C process, in many aspects, it's actually less
predictable.

Of the issues listed at http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/#Issues,
most should be closed around the second week of the year
(I'll only close them tentatively in the first week of the
year to give people some more time to react in case they
were on holidays). There are also a couple or so issues that
I haven't put on the list, but none of them serious.
The issues I'm most unsure about when they will be closed are
http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/#transcodeNFC-103
(I hope I can claim to understand what Bjoern doesn't want,
but I'm not at all sure I understand what he wants) and
http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/#track-IDN-revision-110
which might need some really creative thinking to not loose
months and months (but the people worknig on the IDN revision
are also committed to finish as soon as possible).

After that, I expect a two-week last call on the public-iri mailing
list, a four-week IETF last call period, and some publication
delay for the RFC editor, and between these the time needed for
updates to the document and review by the Area Director in charge
and the IESG as a whole.

Here are the things that others, including the XML Core WG,
may be able to help:
- Provide tests, run the tests and create test matrixes.
  This would be particularly helpful for the LEIRI case;
  it's much easier to make the case of the LEIRI section
  if we can show that actually existing XML implementations
  actually accept LEIRIs that are not IRIs (except for these
  tests, please make sure that you encourage everybody to NOT
  create such LEIRIs :-). Currently, I have tests, with varying
  coverage, for HTML, CSS, and SVG (all of them of course without
  LEIRIs). The main thing I need is a set of files for the base case
  (e.g. http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp./2005/iritest/HTML/US-ASCIIcheck/us-ascii/a_href/index.html), i.e. completely US-ASCII.
  For testing XML system identifiers, for example, I would need an
  HTML file shortly describing the test, an XML file with an US-ASCII
  system identifier, and TWO DTD files, one for which the XML file
  validates, and another for which the XML file doesn't validate.
  I can then set up tests with various languages, character encodings,
  and so on (including LEIRIs, as far as the file system here allows
  it, but I don't think that should be too much of a problem). I would
  then ask your group (or people from your group) to actually run the
  tests; for the XML system identifier, that would mean to load the
  respective XML files in a validating XML parser and see what happens
  (valid -> test is successful; invalid -> system identifier implementation
  works on bytes (wrong) rather than characters; unresolvable -> some
  other error in the implementation or potentially in the network).
  For XML system identifiers, I can easily create a test myself, it doesn't
  need more than an XML document with a few elements and a few lines of DTD.
  However, for the other specs (you mention a total of six), I'd really
  appreciate if you could create the tests, or send me some if they
  already exist (e.g. for XML Schema). Also, I have to admit that I'm
  not really familliar with which XML implementation allows to validate
  with an XML document and a DTD over the net (or similar for other
  specs), so I'd really appreciate help on this front.

- Reading the whole IRI spec. I know that in particular the XML Core WG
  is very much interested in the section on LEIRIs, but in order to
  move the spec forward through the IETF process, any email (sent to
  public-iri@w3.org) saying something like "I have read the spec and
  have found ... but otherwise, I think the spec should move ahead."
  (even better if this is combined with implementation information!)
  will help.

- This point is more for W3C team members: The IETF tracker for the
  draft, at https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/?search_filename=duerst-iri-bis
  currently does not show a responsible Area Director. I'll try to contact
  Chris Newman and Lisa Dusseault (the two Area Directors of the
  Application Area) today. However, it might help if this also went via
  the official liaison (see http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison#IETF).
  There is a public mailing list for IETF/W3C coordination
  (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/), but I haven't
  seen the draft mentioned there yet.

Again, I'm very sorry for the delay and hope this helps.

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 Friday, 21 December 2007 06:20:58 UTC