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

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

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:39:24 +0300
Message-ID: <4E1FFCBC.4080409@gmail.com>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
CC: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>

I preferred to write a separate document because there are a lot of 
stuff in the current draft that including the additional 7-8 pages may 
create it even harder to read the document.  Whereas a valid URI 
conforms to IRI syntax, due to the nature of protocol (FTP) URIs are 
used much broader that corresponding IRIs.  Therefore 'ftp' URIs are 
what almost everybody uses; 'ftp' IRIs are used more seldom and so 
should better be described in a separate document, as well as regulation 
which rule their handling.


15.07.2011 10:24, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> 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 09:08:15 UTC

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