Re: IDNA, IRI, HTML5 coordination

Hello Maciej,

I think you raise one of the most crucial points when you talk about 
dependency and timing for HTML5 below.

We have had a lot of interim solutions in the IRI space, and they often 
leave some scars. (As an example, the fact that XML allows spaces and a 
few other characters not allowed in IRIs, and we therefore went ahead 
and defined LEIRIs in the current draft is a scar resulting from the XML 
specs basing their work on earlier drafts of the IRI spec.)

Another danger of an interim solution is that often, the relevant and 
concerned parties are only interested in one specific aspect of the 
spec, and once they feel that part has settled down, they don't follow 
the rest of the work. In many ways, this is natural, but on the other 
hand, and with the way the IETF works in particular, changes are always 
possible, for various reasons (e.g. the WG is fine on a point, but 
overall, the IETF feels different, or there are details in one part of 
the spec that affect another part of the spec, and so on). So anybody 
who wants to use an interim solution be very well advised to follow the 
further progess of the spec and cry out loud if a further change down 
the road creates problems for them. (and even then, there's not really a 
guarantee the change won't happen)

So it would definitely be great if we could avoid interim solutions. On 
the other hand, we also would of course like not to delay other specs.

As for HTML5, I have heard repeatedly about projections for last call 
similar to the ones you give below. But what's the timeline after that? 
If that's another last call in six months, and CR in a year, then it may 
be possible for the IRI side to catch up. (Last Call in the IETF is 2 
weeks for WGs, 4 weeks for documents that didn't go through a WG.) Just 
a thought, no idea at all whether it makes any sense.

In my view, the ideal outcome would be that Larry and Michel and me have 
a draft that works for everybody involved by the Hiroshima IETF, we have 
a BOF there, and we decide that the work is already done and everybody 
is happy so no WG is needed.

There is still some time until the Hiroshima IETF, and Larry and me have 
reserved some time to work together in early October, so there is at 
least a slight chance that this might work out, but on the other hand, 
there are a few points on which Larry and me currently have very 
differing opinions, to the extent that I'm not sure we could even write 
a reasonable charter for a potential IETF WG. I very much hope that this 
will change. For more details, please see the technical thread.

Regards,    Martin.

On 2009/09/17 21:35, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Sep 16, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
>
>> Goal: bring together and coordinate the definitions
>> of what is used for resource identification in the web and elsewhere
>> (IRIs as the evolution of URL, URI, IRI, HREF, Web Address, etc.)
>> within W3C, IETF and their specifications. See "design goals" below.
>>
>> Goal of this message: lay out the concerned groups, start discussion
>> of process for coordination.
>>
>> I've bcc'd everyone except the public-iri@w3.org mailing list,
>> archive http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/ as the
>> list proposed for discussion:
>>
>>
>> My suggestion for how to get all of these groups to coordinate
>> is to start an IETF working group with a charter to bring these
>> specifications into alignment. I can't think of any other process
>> which can accomplish the goal.
>>
>> PLEASE, PLEASE: if you're going to post an opinion, please at least
>> cc public-iri@w3.org and try to keep discussion there.
>>
>> PLEASE: Separate 'process' issues (should there be a working group?
>> Who else needs to be involved? What's the timing and when?) from
>> technical issues.
>
> I have some process questions:
>
> 1) What kind of timeline are we talking about?
> 2) Do we expect that HTML5 to depend on the ultimate product of this
> working group, or will some earlier spec (such as an updated IRIbis
> draft) meet its needs?
>
> I ask because resource identifiers are currently a blocking issue for
> the HTML Working Group. We would like to take HTML5 to Last Call soon
> (within the next quarter or two), but we do not have a suitable
> reference to use for processing of resource identifiers. HTML5 currently
> references the Web Address specification, which is not being updated or
> progressed along the standards track. IRIbis currently does not define
> many of the lenient processing algorithms needed by HTML5. Thus we are
> in a bind. If the new specification (which sounds like a great idea) is
> not ready soon, what should HTML5 use as an interim solution?
>
> I can imagine a few possibilities: (a) move Web Address forward in the
> W3C or the IETF, with the expectation that it will be obsoleted in due
> course by the grand unified resource identifier spec; (b) put interim
> definitions in the HTML5 spec itself until the new spec is ready; (c)
> update the IRIbis draft ASAP so HTML5 can reference it, while waiting
> for the new Working Group to be formed and the new spec to be written.
>
> Can anyone give guidance from an IETF perspective? Would it be
> problematic to pursue an interim solution?
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp

Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 09:49:15 UTC