- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:43:32 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: URI <uri@w3.org>, "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > ... > That's what I thought, but then I got feedback saying I had to register an > IRI scheme if I wanted to use IRIs. > > I've no interest in making ws: and wss: URIs. Only IRIs. > > If I define the syntax to be a subset of the full URI syntax, how does it > ever get extended to be a subset of the full IRI syntax? > > What should I put in the spec to make you happy and to make the use of ws: > and wss: IRIs fully well-defined? > ... The point is not to make me happy, but to do the right thing. Just define a URI scheme; use of ws IRIs will be defined automatically in terms of RFC 3987 (IRI experts, please correct me if I'm wrong). > ... >> The RFC reference is immutable. Just paste the content in your source >> file, and change the anchor attribute value. > > My source file is an HTML document, so I don't think that would work well. The source file that you feed into xml2rfc is an XML file using the RFC2629bis syntax. You control that file. Put into it what you need. > ... > I've read this, but as far as I can tell, "Always UTF-8" and "See IRI" are > both complete and accurate ways of addressing this. > > Since apparently neither of these options satisfies you, could you state > exactly what literal text would satisfy you? > ... I already pointed you to RFC 5092 as relatively recent example, see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5092#section-8>. BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 5 September 2009 06:44:24 UTC