- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:17:04 +0200
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, public-iri@w3.org
On 2011-08-02 03:35, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > ... >>> In section 3.2 you have "The result will be a valid URI Reference if >>> and only if the components used by the algorithm were valid themselves." >>> I have some doubts about "only if", consider for instance removing dot >>> segments, which might remove a malformed part, if I recall correctly. >> >> Good point. > > This also caught my attention. With ".." in the relative reference, some > potentially invalid path parts get canceled out. > > > Some additional points: > > The Introduction is (exactly?) the same as the abstract. That should > change. That's how I always start my specs :-) > 3.1 says: "all components except for the Path Component can be > undefined." I'd change 'undefined' to 'empty'. These are different things, and, as far as I recall, the distinction is important for the resolution process. > In the reference section, the list of URIs doesn't make sense. Put these > in the text (or alternatively, make them real references, e.g. > "Mailing List Address of the mailing list of the IRI WG, > <mailto:public-iri@w3.org>") Irrelevant; these would be gone upon RFC publication. > I'm looking forward to work on B.2, B.4, and B.5. I don't think B.3 is > necessary. > > > Regards, Martin. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 08:17:38 UTC