RE: Proposed resolution of HRRI/IRI discussion

We don't need to know what they are (we already do, but 
that's not the point).

We know they are allowed by the XML spec in what we are 
now calling LEIRIs, so if Martin's revision of the IRI
RFC doesn't allow them, we won't be able to refer to the
revised IRI RFC, and we'll have to go back to developing
our own definition of LEIRIs (as in the HRRI draft).

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Ishida [mailto:ishida@w3.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 2007 October 31 13:02
> To: Grosso, Paul; 'Martin Duerst'; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org; public-iri@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed resolution of HRRI/IRI discussion
> 
> If you want to know what those codepoints are, go here:
> http://rishida.net/scripts/uniview/?range=FFF0:FFFF&utf8=false
> &displayStyle=
> list&char=FFF9
> 
> Click on a character to the left to get more detailed 
> information on the
> right.
> 
> RI
> 
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> Internationalization Lead
> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
>  
> http://www.w3.org/International/
> http://rishida.net/blog/
> http://rishida.net/
> 
>  
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-i18n-core-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
> > Sent: 31 October 2007 15:15
> > To: Martin Duerst; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> > Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org; public-iri@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Proposed resolution of HRRI/IRI discussion
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> > > [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> > Martin Duerst
> > > Sent: Saturday, 2007 October 13 20:22
> > > To: Henry S. Thompson; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> > > Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org; public-iri@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: Proposed resolution of HRRI/IRI discussion
> > 
> > > I just have submitted draft-duerst-iri-bis-01.txt, which is 
> > available 
> > > e.g. at 
> > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-bis-01.txt.
> > > 
> > > I created a whole new section for "Legacy Extended IRIs", 
> Section 7.
> > > I adopted your name, which is fine with me, and much of your text.
> > > However, I reorganized the material a bit, creating a 
> section that 
> > > deals strictly with the syntax definition (7.1), a short 
> section on 
> > > conversion (7.2), and rather long section discussing each of the 
> > > character groups that are allowed in Legacy Extended IRIs, 
> > but not in 
> > > IRIs, including the problems these characters may create.
> > > (I just noticed that the bullet points for that list are 
> > missing, I'll 
> > > fix that the next time round).
> > > 
> > > I'd appreciate any and all comments, from the XML Core WG and 
> > > otherwise, on this new section and otherwise. Please note 
> that the 
> > > more comments we get, the sooner we can be sure that the 
> updates we 
> > > did are about right.
> > 
> > Martin,
> > 
> > Richard Tobin has reviewed the LEIRI section of your draft 
> > and makes the following comment for the XML Core WG.  We'd be 
> > interested in your reply.
> > 
> > paul
> > 
> > ------
> > 
> > I have compared Martin's text with our earlier discussions, 
> > and it seems to match with one exception:  he excludes all of 
> > FFF0-FFFF, instead of just FFFE and FFFF.  He has a note
> > "U+FFF0-FFFF: TODO:  Check, give these a name, and explain".
> > 
> > I'm not sure what the issue is with these characters, but to 
> > achieve our aim of not making a normative change to XML 
> > (etc), we need to allow FFF0-FFFD, no matter how stupid they are.
> > 
> > If we resolve this point, I think we could abandon our own 
> > efforts and refer to LEIRIs in our specs.
> > 
> > -- Richard
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 18:17:12 UTC