Re: canonical form and scheme-specific processing rules for URI/IRI spec

* Chris Weber wrote:
>It was brought up here 
><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2011Jun/0085.html> that 
>defining a canonical form in the URI/IRI spec would make sense and be 
>useful.  Also, that the definition should include scheme-specific rules 
>for a finite list of scheme types.
>
>If this is agreeable with no objections, then what should be included in 
>the list of schemes?

I would regard this as a major new feature and I do not think the group
should adopt this as a new work item, or as part of an existing one, at
this time. As it is we have no input document, do not know how much work
this would require, whether we have the right people here, if there is
actually an interest to unify canonicalization algorithms, and we do not
seem to have all the resources we need to complete our other items. I am
perfectly happy with people working on this individually and using this
list to coordinate their efforts, of course.

If people do end up working on this, it might be a good idea for the IRI
Working Group to consider whether RFC 4395bis should recommend that new
schemes should say something about canonicalization as, if this ends up
being scheme-specific, whoever working on this is unlikely to anticipate
all future schemes.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 00:18:05 UTC