closing [iriequivalence-01] (was: Re: Some issues with the IRI document [nfcnfkc-04])

You made your comments with a subject including [nfcnfkc-04],
but what you actually commented about was more like issue
iriequivalence-01 (see

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,
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