- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:01:37 -0700
- To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
- CC: "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <PUBLIC-IRI@w3.org>
I'm sorry for the confusion, my email was sent by mistake. I have not re-reviewed the "widget" URI scheme since a previous review several months ago. I was only reacting to something in your email. I suppose I should re-review the "widget" URI scheme document itself, but I haven't. My goal at the moment is to update the IRI document. > Why is the Widgets 1.0: URI Scheme about URI and not IRI? The short answer is that, in general, one defines URI schemes and automatically gets something that describes IRIs as well. > widget-URI = "widget:" "//" [ authority ] "/" zip-rel-path [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] > is incorrect (depending on whether you are on byte or character level), > because zip-rel-path includes non-percent-encoded characters, thus > widget-URI is actually an IRI. I wonder if the URI registration process document should specifically allow registration forms to describe the URI scheme syntax in terms of IRI characters. > What then about naming the specification as "Widgets 1.0: IRI Scheme" > and referring to IRIs? Again, because formally there are no "IRI schemes", there are only URI schemes, even though there are IRIs which can be mapped into URIs of that scheme. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 20:02:25 UTC