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

Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-iri-00.txt

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:24:20 +0900
Message-ID: <4E1FEB24.5000507@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
CC: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
Hello Mykyta,

On 2011/07/15 13:30, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

> I have uploaded the separate draft regarding i18n of 'ftp' URIs:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-iri-00
> It is a supplement to my other draft concerning 'ftp' URI scheme, and it
> intends to update it. I'd like to ask people to comment the document.
> Please send your comments to public-iri@ietf.org.

I haven't ready the draft in much detail, but I think it's very much the 
wrong approach to have a document for the ftp: URI scheme and another 
for internationalization aspects of that.

As for any URI/IRI scheme, there is only one ftp: URI/IRI scheme. What 
is allowed in an ftp: IRI should be fully defined by RFC 3987 (or its 
sucessor) and the ftp: URI specification (in particular the %HH 
sequences that it allows, in ABNF and/or prose). Anything else is an 
indication that something is wrong.

Rather than defining the ftp: scheme on the level of URIs (i.e. ASCII) 
and derive the IRI definition, it is also possible to define the ftp: 
scheme on the level of IRIs, and derive the URI definition. Some schemes 
are already taking this alternative, for example xmpp.

On a more general level, it is sometimes necessary to write specs with 
titles such as "Internationalization of FOO" (I have been involved with 
some of these myself, e.g. RFC 2070), but writing a "FOO" spec and an 
"Internationalization of FOO" spec in parallel is a bad idea. 
Internationalization of a spec should be described in the base spec.

Regards,     Martin.
Received on Friday, 15 July 2011 07:25:37 UTC

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