RE: Fwd: Re: HRRIs, IRIs, etc

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 2007 June 19 20:24
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-iri@w3.org; Richard Ishida; Felix Sasaki; 
> www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org; 
> public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: HRRIs, IRIs, etc
> 
> Hello Paul, others,

> 
> Not only have these concerns not yet been adressed, but also do I not
> remember having received any kind of reply on these issues.
> 
> Looking forward to hear from you again.
> 
> Regards,     Martin.

Martin,

Thank you for your detailed comments.

I think you may have sent some private email in the
past that never made it to the WG's attention.

The only email I see from you in the archive is
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2007AprJun/
0000
which doesn't mention any of the issues you remind us
of above, hence our apparent lack of response to you.

Because the XLink 1.1 and XML Base PER are both on hold
for this issue, and because we were just pulling out the
definition already in XML, XLink, and other specs and
putting it into this RFC, we were hoping to to this in
an expeditious manner.

I'm not sure how the IRI spec and the words in the XLink
spec (which we were attempting to copy into this HRRI 
spec) ended up so out of sync given that we thought what
we put in the XLink spec was a copy of what was in the
IRI spec (before the IRI spec was officially available),
so I'm somewhat surprised by your long list of issues.

We don't want to rush out something that is wrong or
confusing.  We thought issuing an RFC to define HRRIs
(or whatever you want to call these things) was the
easiest and best route.  If that isn't going to work,
we may fall back to defining them in a W3C Note or in
a separate mini-Rec or something else, but for the time
being, we will review your comments and try to figure
out where to go from here.

paul

Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 16:16:19 UTC