- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:36:09 -0700
- To: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
- CC: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
John Klensin wrote (on > I do believe that there has > been a long-term, and often largely hidden, disagreement about > the applicability of IRIs --whether they are about standardizing > a user interface element or whether they are expected to act as > protocol elements-- that complicates these discussions. My original goal -- in defining "IRI" as separate from "URI" -- was that the applicability of IRIs was to be independently determined. That is, applications and protocols would *choose* whether to reference the URI document or the IRI document (and a specific non-terminal within the IRI document.) That is, specifications which cited URI would not automatically be "upgraded" to use IRIs, but rather must explicitly choose. I think this is possible with the URI -> IRI path, and that it has been explicit, although a bit haphazard. Unfortunately, because of divergent practice, there are more than one non-terminal protocol elements in common use which require documentation, including LEIRI for reference by XML-based specifications and HREF (a.k.a. Web Address) explicitly to match HTML5. I don't see any way to avoid the divergence, even if discouraging it. Do you think this approach might allow the IRI document to move forward and let the applicability discussions continue in more appropriate contexts? I will try to make this approach explicit in the IRI document. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Saturday, 20 June 2009 23:38:13 UTC