New issues #49, #50 (was: Re: Comments on draft-hansen-iri-4395bis-irireg-00.txt)

On 2010/10/05 13:43, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> As an unrelated point, a common confusion is that people think the
> fragment identifier is a scheme-specific, it's common for proposed
> registrations to define the fragment as part of the scheme, and it is
> unfortunately common that fragment identifiers are in fact treated
> as data, like "javascript:open('#example')" or "data:,#example" in
> implementations. However, fragment identifiers are part of the generic
> framework, the scheme-specific part ends where the fragment begins.
> I think 4395bis should discuss this problem in some detail.

I have added this to the tracker as issue #49.
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/49


> (Finally, please do use named references and not "[7]".)

I have added this to the tracker as issue #49.
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/50


I'm not speaking for the chairs, but I suggest the following:

- We should add any clearly raised issues to the tracker.
- Adding something to the tracker doesn't mean it has to be done,
   it just means we have to decide whether we want to do it or not
   (there may be things that are raised that we decide we better
    don't)
- If you comment on some issue that has a number, please use "issue #??"
   (where ?? is the issue number), in the subject if possible.

Regards,   Martin.

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

Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 08:44:41 UTC