Re: [iri] 3987bis #29 (new): include tag ranges in iprivate production

Dear IRI WG,

This may be the first time you see an automatic forwarding mail from the 
issue tracker. It took a long time to make sure the mailing list accepts 
mails from the tracker. Some of these mails may be rather short, and 
some can easily be ignored, but I'll try to make them as informative as 
possible, and hope that the other editors and the chairs will be doing 
the same.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2010/11/02 18:03, iri issue tracker wrote:
> #29: include tag ranges in iprivate production
>
>
> Comment(by duerst@…):
>
>   I have verified that the overall tag range (U+E0000-E0FFF) is already
>   added in the syntax (this was done in draft-duerst-iri-bis-02).
>   I have created text that points out the difference, as requested by Larry.
>   The text reads:
>   Added the tag range (U+E0000-E0FFF) to the iprivate production. Some IRIs
>   generated with the new syntax may fail to pass very strict checks relying
>   on the old syntax.
>
>   To keep this text (the "Change Log" section is to be removed by the RFC
>   editor), I have created a new section just above the "Change Log" section,
>   entitled "Main Changes Since RFC 3987".
>
>   Moved Larry's OLD/NEW text about the processing model to this section (It
>   may need some more tweaking.) from the Change Log section.
>
>   Added a dummy subsection to the "Major Changes" section to indicate that
>   there are other major changes that need to go in this section.
>
>   Added a reference to RFC 3987.
>
>   Chairs: In my opinion, this issue can be closed.
>

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

Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 10:31:40 UTC