- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 03:08:39 +0200
- To: public-iri@w3.org
Hello public-iri, These editorial comments relate to http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri-07.txt From the new appendix A > New schemes are not needed to distinguish URIs from true IRIs (i.e. IRIs that contain non-ASCII characters). The benefit of being able to detect the origin of percent-encodings is marginal, also because UTF-8 can be detected with very high reliably. Deploying new schemes is extremely hard. Not needing new schemes for IRIs makes deployment of IRIs vastly easier. Making conversion scheme-dependent is highly unadvisable. Using an uniform convention for conversion from IRIs to URIs makes IRI implementation orthogonal from the introduction of acual new schemes. I suggest some slight wording and spelling changes (editorial) New schemes are not needed to distinguish URIs from true IRIs (i.e. IRIs that contain non-ASCII characters). The benefit of being able to detect the origin of percent-encodings is marginal, because UTF-8 can be detected with very high reliability. Deploying new schemes is extremely hard, so not requiring new schemes for IRIs makes deployment of IRIs vastly easier. Making conversion scheme-dependent is highly inadvisable, and would be encouraged by such an approach. Using an uniform convention for conversion from IRIs to URIs makes IRI implementation orthogonal to the introduction of actual new schemes. It might also be added that the TAG recommends not adding new schemes that are almost exactly like HTTP; i:http: or httpi: would have exactly that problem. > UTF-8 avoids a double layering and overloading of the use of the "+" character. UTF-8 is fully compatible with US-ASCII, and has therefore been recommended by the IETF, and is being used widely, while UTF-7 has never been used much and is now clearly being discouraged. I suggest a small change Using UTF-8 avoids a double layering and overloading of the use of the "+" character. UTF-8 is fully compatible with US-ASCII, and has therefore been recommended by the IETF, and is being used widely, while UTF-7 has never been used much and is now clearly being discouraged. You might also mention here that using UTF-8 here is existing practice and that requiring implementations to convert to the rarely used UTF-7 is an additional implementation burden. The arguments against using %u and against inline encoding declarations are well made. In 3.1 Mapping of IRIs to URIs, the renumbering of the sub steps in step two is clearer than in the previous draft. Should non-realworld, non-resolving sample URIs such as http://big.site/PopularPage.html not be, for example, http://big.example/PopularPage.html ? -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Monday, 10 May 2004 21:35:05 UTC