RE: [iri] #5: Separate IRI from "presentation of IRI" as concepts

Perhaps:

--
The relationship between the protocol element and its presentation becomes more complicated when dealing with the much larger set of characters than is allowed in the URIs defined by [RFC 3986].
--

While it's true that this is a "transition", the question is whether the presentation form is identical or is baked somehow. I tend to favor the least amount of presentational sugar possible, with the fundamental problem being that bidi URIs don't keep their elements visually grouped "properly". And actually I thought that was Larry's position (although he may have changed it).

Addison

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp]
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 1:05 AM
> To: Peter Saint-Andre; Larry Masinter
> Cc: public-iri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [iri] #5: Separate IRI from "presentation of IRI" as concepts
> 
> Hello Peter,
> 
> On 2011/11/12 8:35, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > <hat type='individual'/>
> >
> > Section 1.1 of rfc3987bis has the following paragraph:
> >
> > URIs are used both as a protocol element (for transmission and
> > processing by software) and also a presentation element (for display
> > and handling by people who read, interpret, coin, or guess them).
> > The transition between these roles is more difficult and complex when
> > dealing with the larger set of characters than allowed for URIs in
> > [RFC3986].
> >
> > In Issue #5, Larry suggested a change...
> >
> > "... processing by software) and also as the basis for presentation
> > (for display and handling by people who read, interpret, coin, or
> > guess them). The transition between protocol element and presentation
> > is more difficult and complex when..."
> 
> It was my impression that Larry wanted to change the other way, i.e. to
> strengthen the difference between the IRI itself (the "thing", and maybe its
> electronic representation) and the "presentation of an IRI" (visual or
> auditory).
> 
> Larry, can you tell us what you wanted?
> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
> 
> > That seems reasonable to me. I see only a few related modifications:
> >
> > 1. In Section 1.3, delete this definition:
> >
> > presentation element: A presentation form corresponding to a protocol
> > element; for example, using a wider range of characters.
> >
> > 2. In Section 7.2, change this:
> >
> > A person viewing a visual representation of an IRI
> >
> > to:
> >
> > A person viewing a visual presentation of an IRI
> >
> > Peter
> >

Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 16:23:01 UTC