W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > April 2004

Re: Some issues with the IRI document [nfcnfkc-04] (closed)

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:03:39 +0900
Message-Id: <>
To: public-iri@w3.org
Cc: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>

The new section 5 has been completed for quite a while,
but I didn't get around to close this issue.

You can find the new section 5 at
It is closely modeled on section 6 of the new (RFC2396bis) URI draft, which
has been authored by the W3C TAG. It is in the same document (as Paul
wanted it), it is not in an Appendix, which addresses Ted's concerns.

The section about normalization is at:
The text that Paul explicitly asked to be included at
is a note in that section.

Regards,    Martin.

At 06:15 03/04/18 -0400, Martin Duerst wrote:

>I have started a new section 5, entitled "IRI Equivalence and Comparison".
>The intro text currently reads:
>@@@@ This section will be worked out to discuss IRI Equivalence and Comparison
>similar to the section "URI Normalization and Comparison" in RFC2396bis, with
>frequent references to that section, and pointing out differences between URIs
>and IRIs and IRI-specific issues (text normalization, language-dependence of
>casing operations, and so on.
>I have moved sections 2.3 and 2.4 to that section to serve as
>starting material. I'll have to work on it some more.
>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 Friday, 30 April 2004 01:03:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:14:31 UTC