- From: Michael A. Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 21:49:54 -0500
- To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: public-iri@w3.org
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 20:36:30 -0500, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: > Hello Michael, > > On 2011/03/10 3:50, Michael A. Puls II wrote: >> On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 03:39:11 -0500, Martin J. Dürst >> <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: >> >>> I did not yet define the mailto scheme in terms of an IRI, but I may do >>> that in a future version. >> >> If you did, does that mean that instead of using: >> >> URI: >> <mailto:?subject=32%CE%BCF%20Choke> >> >> , one could use: >> >> IRI: >> <mailto:?subject=32μF%20Choke> >> >> ? > > You can already use mailto:?subject=32μF%20Choke wherever you can use > IRIs. Whether to define an URI/IRI scheme in terms of URIs or in terms > of IRIs doesn't affect that. It's just a question of how the grammar is > written. Thanks -- Michael
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:50:26 UTC