- From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:53:30 -0700
- To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:13 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: <snipped> > > I agree in principle. But the 63 octet length limit for domain names does > not directly affect IRIs, and therefore cannot be a normative limit, only an > informative one. You give an example of that further below, but to quote > from the URI spec (RFC 3986, see > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.2): > > This specification does not mandate a particular registered name > lookup technology and therefore does not restrict the syntax of reg- > name beyond what is necessary for interoperability. Instead, it > delegates the issue of registered name syntax conformance to the > operating system of each application performing URI resolution, and > that operating system decides what it will allow for the purpose of > host identification. A URI resolution implementation might use DNS, > host tables, yellow pages, NetInfo, WINS, or any other system for > lookup of registered names. However, a globally scoped naming > system, such as DNS fully qualified domain names, is necessary for > URIs intended to have global scope. URI producers should use names > that conform to the DNS syntax, even when use of DNS is not > immediately apparent, and should limit these names to no more than > 255 characters in length. > Perhaps the easiest way to resolve this, then is a set of informative pointers to the suggested and normative limits. RFC 3986 for the suggestion to fit within DNS limits, RFC 1034 for the DNS limits, and a note to check the scheme registration for specific schemes when checking limits. Does that work? Ted
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 17:22:58 UTC