- From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:14:04 +0000
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "presnick@qualcomm.com" <presnick@qualcomm.com>
- CC: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
Larry Masinter writes:
> > And, fwiw, I think that is another symptom of lack of broad consensus about
> whether IRIs are part of UI/presentation interfaces or are protocol elements.
>
> I'm certain that the route we've gone down forces IRIs to be protocol
> elements in some circumstances, if only because IRIs (and not just URIs)
> appear within languages used in network protocols.
I would agree with that (i.e., we need to treat them as protocol elements).
[...]
> In fact, I have tried, in recent edits to the various drafts, to clarify that IRIs are
> protocol elements, and that there are also presentational forms ("printed on
> the side of the bus") which are not, themselves, IRIs, but presentations of
> them. If there is any part of any current document which you think isn't clear
> on this point, could you let us know so we can open a ticket and fix it?
I agree with that direction.
But to be clear draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines should be scoped to be not about
protocol elements at all, but about presentations of protocol elements, and
as such is higher layer than 3987(bis). There are probably places where the
text in draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines needs to be improved to say so explicitly.
But it is basically trying to do what John calls "telling UI designers what they can
or cannot do". Similar issues undoubtedly occur with email addresses
(and other email-address-like identifiers), etc. not just IDNs as Larry mentioned.
-Dave
Received on Friday, 13 April 2012 22:14:48 UTC