- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 10:16:22 +0100
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, public-iri@w3.org
Martin, Looks good to me: I support closure. Thanks. #g -- At 15:11 20/05/04 +0900, Martin Duerst wrote: >Hello Graham, > >At 09:42 04/05/19 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote: > >>At 12:07 19/05/04 +0900, Martin Duerst wrote: >>>Coming back to your original point, I have reworded >>> >>> For comparison, such conversions MUST only be done on the fly, >>> while retaining the original IRI. >>> >>>to >>> >>> In order to conserve the original IRIs, such conversions SHOULD >>> only be done on the fly, while retaining the IRIs. >> >>Martin, >> >>I think that's better, but I still think it is making normative >>statements about implementation technique, which was the point of my >>original comment. (And I think the normative point you do want to make >>really should be a MUST!) >> >>For example, I think this this might say what you want without dictating >>implementation: >>[[ >>If the IRI is to be passed to another application, or used further in >>some other way, its original form MUST be preserved; the conversion >>described here should be performed only for the purpose of local comparison. >>]] > >Okay, now I understand: You wanted the 'on the fly' removed, because >this would have forbidden caching,... I have used your text, and >tentatively closed this issue. > > >Regards, Martin. ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2004 05:33:29 UTC