W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > August 2011

opinions on tracker issues

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:31:26 -0600
Message-ID: <4E36E2EE.3030502@stpeter.im>
To: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
<hat type='individual'/>

I had a chance to review the tracker issues on the trip back from IETF
81. Here are my opinions on most (but not all) of the open issues...

#8 - Agreed on removing "uniformly".

#10 - Agreed on removing "defined by".

#11 - Belongs in the processing spec (a.k.a. "Reschke-Weber"),
      specifically in text about on the topic of pre-processing.

#12 - Referencing RFC 3986 seems appropriate.

#15 - Belongs in the processing spec or equivalance spec.

#25 - Belongs in the bidi spec.

#26 - I think it's fine to say this is legal but a bad idea.

#27 - Another instance of legal but a bad idea.

#28 - Belongs in the bidi spec.

#34 - I have no idea what the missing text is. We could say:

      In some situations, for presentation and further processing,
      it is desirable to convert a URI into an equivalent IRI in
      which natural characters are represented directly rather
      than percent encoded. Of course, every URI is already an IRI
      in its own right without any conversion.  However, this
      section gives one possible procedure for conversion.

#36 - Belongs in the processing spec.

#38 - Belongs in the processing spec, on pre-processing.

#39 - Belongs in the processing spec, on pre-processing.

#40 - Belongs in the processing spec, on pre-processing.

#43 - I think we should say that systems accepting IRIs SHOULD NOT
      perform special handling of the printable characters in the
      US-ASCII range that are not allowed in URIs.

      (Maybe even MUST NOT.)

#44 - Agreed on adding a non-normative reference to TR 46.

#46 - We discussed this a bit in Quebec City. I'm of the opinion
      that any length limits on IRIs or components thereof belong
      in the specifications for application protocols that define
      new URI/IRI schemes.

#47 - I think it would be good to add some guidance to implementers
      regarding practical limits.  IMHO this advice belongs in the
      processing specification

#66 - Isn't the question of punycode conversion a matter for
      pre-processing of strings that will be fed to a DNS
      resolver? If we need to say something about it, it seems to
      belong in the processing spec.

#68 - This sounds like a post-processing guideline that belongs in
      the processing spec.


Peter Saint-Andre
Received on Monday, 1 August 2011 17:32:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:14:42 UTC