RE: Closing Issue 502 ( was RE: Issue 502 is closed )

Hello Martin,

The following note is personal, rather than from the I18N WG.

Tiny quibble. I think there is a typo in your change to the document. You say:

> attribute information item. NOTE: the use of the xs:anyURI type
> anticipates the possibility that in future schemes will be developed
> that use IRI rather than URI naming for resources."
> 

I believe that the word "the" is missing in the phrase "that in THE future schemes"

Also, I'm not sure that "schemes" is a very clear word choice here. Perhaps it would be better to say something like:

"NOTE: the use of the xs:anyURI type anticipates the adoption of IRIs to replace URIs for the naming of resources"

Best Regards,

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
webMethods | Delivering Global Business Visibility
http://www.webMethods.com
Chair, W3C Internationalization (I18N) Working Group
Chair, W3C-I18N-WG, Web Services Task Force
http://www.w3.org/International

Internationalization is an architecture. 
It is not a feature.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-ws-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-i18n-ws-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Martin Gudgin
> Sent: 2004年10月15日 4:40
> To: Martin Duerst; I18n WSTF; xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Cc: Yves Lafon
> Subject: Closing Issue 502 ( was RE: Issue 502 is closed )
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmlp-comments-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:xmlp-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Duerst
> > Sent: 07 October 2004 23:58
> > To: Yves Lafon; I18n WSTF
> > Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Issue 502 is closed
> > 
> > 
> > Hello Yves, others,
> > 
> > This is the official response of the I18N WG (WS Task Force) to
> > your response on your issue number 502.
> > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x502
> > 
> > At 20:22 04/09/24 +0200, Yves Lafon wrote:
> > >On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, A. Vine wrote:
> > >
> > >[issue 502 [1] covers the points 5 and 6 of your email [2]. ]
> > >
> > >The XMLP WG decided to close issue 502 with the following resolution:
> > >
> > >point 5:
> > >The following text was added to section 4.2.2:
> > ><<<
> > >The value of the resource attribute information SHOULD be a 
> > URI Reference 
> > >as defined in RFC 2396 including ammendments to that 
> > definition found in 
> > >RFC 2732.
> > 
> > This would rule out IRIs. But we explicitly asked for allowing IRIs.
> > It is unclear to us why this was rejected, and we would have to object
> > to such a decision.
> 
> Dear Martin and I18N,
> 
> Regarding issue 502[1], the XMLP Working Group has amended section 4.2.2
> if the Resource Representation SOAP Header Block specification to read:
> 
> "The type of the resource attribute information item is xs:anyURI. The
> value of the resource attribute information item is a URI that
> identifies the Web resource whose representation is carried in the
> rep:Representation element information item parent of the resource
> attribute information item. NOTE: the use of the xs:anyURI type
> anticipates the possibility that in future schemes will be developed
> that use IRI rather than URI naming for resources."
> 
> We trust this addresses your concern about allowing IRIs in the resource
> attribute.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Martin Gudgin
> For the XMLP WG
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x502

Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 14:15:43 UTC