- From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:26:46 -0700
- To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
- CC: public-iri@w3.org, addison@lab126.com, chris@lookout.net, duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
On 11/9/11 4:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Wednesday, November 09, 2011 15:33 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre > <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote: > >> On 10/21/11 4:50 PM, iri issue tracker wrote: >>> # 44: Reference Unicode TR 46, and if yes, how? >>> >>> >>> Comment (by duerst@…): >>> >>> It may make sense to watch other internet drafts as they >>> move through the IESG for approval, and then look at how we >>> can reuse their text. (As an example, >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-origin-06 >>> mentions both IDNA 2003 and 2008, in >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec- >>> origin-06#section-8.4, IDNA dependency and migration.) >> >> <hat type='individual'/> >> >> It's not clear to me how UTR 46 is quite on-target for IRIs in >> general. If anything, UTR 46 might be referenced from one of >> the IDNA specs, but not from the IRI spec (IMHO). > > Peter, > > Let me say that a little more strongly. URIs and IRIs need to > be in some sort of reduced canonical form or basically all hope > of comparing them (including for caching purposes) without some > rather complicated algorithm disappears. To the extent to which > they are a good idea at all, mapping procedures like UTR 46 and > RFC 5895 are useful for providing users with more convenience > and flexibility. But, to the extent to which URIs and IRIs are > going to be used between systems, used to identify cached > content, etc., they just don't belong in them. Worse, neither > UTR 46 nor RFC 5895 (especially the former) are general-purpose > mapping/ equivalence routines. They are specific to IDNA and, > to a considerable measures, motivated by a desire to smooth out > IDNA2003 -> IDNA2008 transition. <hat type='individual'/> You're preaching to the choir. :) I see no reason to reference either UTR 46 or RFC 5895 in 3987bis, but other WG participants might disagree. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2011 23:27:16 UTC