- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:47:27 -0400
- To: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, public-iri@w3.org, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, phoffman@mail.imc.org
You made your comments with a subject including [nfcnfkc-04], but what you actually commented about was more like issue iriequivalence-01 (see http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/#iriequivalence-01). The newest version of the internal draft contains section 5, "IRI Equivalence and Comparison". This has been closely alligned with section 6, "Normalization and Comparison", of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03.txt, which is based on work by the W3C TAG. Based on this, I herewith close issue iriequivalence-01. Please tell me if you disagree and want to reopen it. Regards, Martin. At 11:14 03/04/17 -0700, Ted Hardie wrote: >Whether it is in this document or another, I believe it should be >in a normative part of the specification. I'm concerned that >moving the question of equivalence to an appendix may not >have the force needed to flag that this is one of the critical >requirements for interoperability. > regards, > Ted > >On Thursday, April 17, 2003, at 10:06 AM, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > >> >>At 9:33 AM -0700 4/17/03, Larry Masinter wrote: >>>I think it sounds like the IRI document might need an >>>expanded section or even separate document covering >>>IRI equivalence, including the additional considerations >>>of escape sequences, different normalization, different >>>case transitions based on language, etc. >> >>Agree, but not about a separate document. It should be in this document, >>but can be an appendix. >> >>--Paul Hoffman, Director >>--Internet Mail Consortium >>
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 15:47:42 UTC