Re: [iri] #111: should scheme definitions explicitly define equivalence

On 3/1/12 5:58 PM, iri issue tracker wrote:
> #111: should scheme definitions explicitly define equivalence
> 
>  from iri-comparison "todo" list:
> 
>  Should 4395bis reference iri-comparison and recommend scheme definitions
>  describe equivalence specifically?

I never saw discussion of this issue. Where do we stand on this one?

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/111

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 17:32:57 UTC