- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 14:44:55 +0900
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, public-iri@w3.org
Okay, thanks, closed. Martin. At 10:16 04/05/20 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote: >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 Friday, 28 May 2004 01:46:05 UTC