RE: [iri] #91: Mapping of <ireg-name>: preferred way?

(if it isn't clear, Martin and I are making edits to the 3987bis document based on info the issue list.)

Issue #91 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/91

Martin and I disagree; I think in the "long term" the right thing to do is to use Unicode all the way down everywhere and never convert to ASCII at all. But in the "short term" (dealing with legacy processors by converting from Unicode to URIs early), the "right thing" to do is to convert to a form that downstream processors will handle correctly.

I'd like to hear from others on this issue, though, I don't have a personal stake, but rather I'm trying to reflect the feedback I've understood.

Is the issue clear?

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net




-----Original Message-----
From: iri issue tracker [mailto:trac+iri@gamay.tools.ietf.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:22 PM
To: draft-ietf-iri-3987bis@tools.ietf.org; duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp; Larry Masinter
Cc: public-iri@w3.org
Subject: Re: [iri] #91: Mapping of <ireg-name>: preferred way?

#91: Mapping of <ireg-name>: preferred way?


Comment (by duerst@…):

 I think that pct-encoding is the right thing in the long term. Some  implementations are already doing it, others will follow. I personally  don't want a spec that locks us into some special case forever when we are  moving towards getting rid of it.

-- 
-------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  evnikita2@…  |       Owner:  draft-ietf-iri-3987bis@…
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  new
 Priority:  critical     |   Milestone:
Component:  3987bis      |     Version:
 Severity:  -            |  Resolution:
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+---------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/91#comment:2>
iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>

Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 16:34:21 UTC