Re: IDNA, IRI, HTML5 coordination

Hello Graham, Larry,

On 2009/09/18 0:19, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> Is this one to consider?:
>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/
>
> This W3C note (dated 2001) predates RFC 3986
> (dated 2005), so on the face of it, it shouldn't
> be necessary. The primary concern should be
> conflicting advice and specifications from
> *current* and *in preparation* documents.

I very much agree with Larry here. The above document mainly was used to 
clarify issues re. URN terminology (URN as a general term for 'names' 
vs. URN as in "urn:" scheme), and to help people understand that in a 
digital network, the distinction between "names" and "locations" is much 
less important (if not irrelevant) than in a traditional (hardware) 
library, where the fact that two copies of the same book ("name") can be 
in two different locations is crucial.

>> Also, what is the specific problem, or pain,
>> that this initiative will address?
>
> While having documents in conflict with widely
> deployed implementations is a general pain
> which we should work to correct,

Yes, trying to bring things together so that people don't have to check 
a lot of different specs, trying to document existing widely-deployed 
implementations, and making sure the quirks of these implementations are 
not seen as creating a whole class of new identifiers, but only as 
"accepting slightly more than necessary" are in my view the main goals.

> specifically
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#urls
>
> contains:
>
>> NOTE: The term "URL" in this specification is used
>> in a manner distinct from the precise technical
>> meaning it is given in RFC 3986. Readers familiar
>> with that RFC will find it easier to read this
>> specification if they pretend the term "URL" as
>> used herein is really called something else
>> altogether. This is a willful violation of
>>   RFC 3986. [RFC3986]
>
> which (as a co-editor of RFC 3986, a member of the W3C
> HTML-WG and a member of the W3C Technical Architecture
> Group) gives me a specific pain. I'm trying to
> complete the action items I took on in W3C HTML-WG
> and W3C TAG to help resolve issues raised around
> incompatible specifications.

The "willful violation" in particular is somewhat repulsing. While it 
may have been well-intended ("watch out, we use this term differently"), 
it reads more like "we wanted to create havoc, and we did". That's not 
the way to write specs, in my view.

The XML specs at one point used "Human Readable Resource Identifier" for 
what's now called "Legacy Extended Internationalized Resource 
Identifier". Maybe we can help HTML5 to move in a similar direction. But 
I don't think terminology issues should be on the critical path; more 
like: If we can solve these on the go, we'll do so.

Regards,    Martin.

> Whether or not this initiative completes in
> time to get the HTML text updated before the
> W3C HTML working group decides to declare
> "last call", the fact that the IETF documents
> are, in fact, not suitable for direct citation
> by those wishing to describe deployed
> browser behavior seems like something the
> IETF can correct.
>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:02 AM
> To: Larry Masinter
> Subject: Re: IDNA, IRI, HTML5 coordination
>
> Larry,
>
> Is this one to consider?:
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/
>
> Also, what is the specific problem, or pain, that this initiative will address?
>
> #g
> --


-- 
#-# 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 10:04:53 UTC