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

Re: reviewing draft-weber-iri-guidelines-00

From: Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:03:26 -0700
Message-ID: <4E1B813E.2010402@lookout.net>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
CC: public-iri@w3.org
On 7/6/2011 2:58 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> However, as per RFC 3986, it isn't valid to identify the "user:pass"
> part in URIs (and IRIs) for all schemes, as well as the only user name,
> if, as you assume, no ":' is present. It is only possible when handling
> an IRI in scheme-specific manner, eg. 'ftp' URIs/IRIs. Some schemes may
> also define authentication information part, such as 'pop' URIs/IRIs
> (RFC 2384), which would be assumed to be a username under your algorithm.


> There are a number of occurrences of "relative reference" whereas it
> says nothing about processing relative IRIs. If rules of RFC 3986 are
> used, this should be mentioned.


> Section 6.4 is going to specify the scheme-specific processing of 'file'
> URIs, which are not properly specified. I recall some discussions on
> file URIs in the end of 2010 on URI@w3c.org, which is the most current.
> There had been a number of such discussions before. A number of
> complexities were identified, which almost make impossible specifying
> the scheme. Considering this, I recommend to skip this section.

I see.  It's been brought up here before that we should consider the 
file scheme for specific handling rules. 
Though maybe doing so would be arbitrary, or based on lots of testing, 
reverse engineering, and observation...

> Section 6.5 is almost in the same situation. I'm currently working on
> 'ftp' URI scheme specification
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-uri-scheme/). So
> there will probably be a need to align these two drafts; however,
> currently the ftp URI draft has no provisions regarding ftp IRIs,
> allowance of UCS chars in ftp *RIs. This may probably be addressed in
> the further versions of the draft; but until the ftp URI scheme isn't
> properly specified by RFC I don't see sense in making up the
> scheme-specific IRI parsing for such *RIs.


>  From Section 7.1: I find confusing the following sequence: (1)
> precent-encode -> (2) UTF-8 encode -> (3) percent-encode {fpr the 2nd
> time!}. I suppose everything percent-encoded is already allowed in URIs,
> so 1st "percent-encode" should be skipped and the following sequence
> should be formed: (1) UTF-8 encode -> (2) percent-encode chars which are
> not allowed in particular URI part within such part.

Good point!  Fixed.

> Several minor/editorial/non-substantial comments. (1) All ABNF
> production should be enclosed in "<" and ">", as recommended by RFC
> 5234. (2) Should your draft update RFC 3987 (or RFC 3987bis)? (3)
> References to IDNA and punycode specifications are missing in Section
> 5.2.2. (4) I suppose RFC 3987bis should be normative reference in the
> draft. (5a) There is no explanation of U+HHHH notation used in your
> document. Even though it's considered that the reader is familiar with
> it, clarifying won't be extra. (5b) Moreover, RFC 5137, BCP 137 did
> officially recommend to use \u'HHHH'. (6) The references are not in the
> common format (even though we may leave this issue to RFC Editor).
> I hope my comments were useful.
> Thanks,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev

Very helpful thanks much.

Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 23:03:55 UTC

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