- From: Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:25:16 -0800
- To: public-iri@w3.org
On 11/9/2011 3:26 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 11/9/11 4:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >> 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 It sounds like you both agree, and after reading through the original thread started by Julian <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2010Sep/0010.html> it seems this was originally a question for the Section 3.4 Mapping ireg-name, which has since been corrected. The topic of canonicalization has been moved along with IRI comparison to draft-ietf-iri-comparison. Best regards, Chris Weber
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 05:25:43 UTC