Re: [iri] #69: Several issues in Introduction of 4395bis

On 1/10/12 5:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 1/10/12 5:28 PM, iri issue tracker wrote:
>> #69: Several issues in Introduction of 4395bis
>>
>>
>> Comment (by ted.ietf@…):
>>
>>  Agree with the general issue, but I propose slightly different language to
>>  resolve it:  "reserving the term URN explicitly for the URIs using the
>>  "urn" scheme name ([RFC2141]).  This also reserves the string "urn" so
>>  that no IRI scheme with that string may be registered."
> 
> That looks better.

<hat type='individual'/>

Looking back at the open issues, I noticed the first half of issue #69,
posted by Mykyta Yevstifeyev:

###

Section 1:

    [RFC3987] introduced IRIs by defining a mapping between URIs
    and IRIs; [RFC3987bis] updates that definition, allowing an
    IRI to be interpreted directly without translating into a URI.

I actually don't see RFC 3987 requiring an IRI to be translated to URI
under any circumstances. Current implementations of IRIs, under RFC
3987, work perfectly without mapping any IRI to URI. So I think this
statement should be changed to:

    [RFC3987] introduced IRIs by extending the characetr range
    allowed for URIs from ASCII to Universal Characetr Set (UCS);
    [RFC3987bis] updates that definition to suit IRIs' current
    usage.

###

Strictly speaking, UCS is not a character range (or, more precisely, a
character repertoire) but a coded characer set (and UCE-2/UCS-4 are
encoding forms). Therefore I suggest that the following is more accurate
and more consistent with RFC 6365:

    [RFC3987] introduced IRIs by expanding the character repertoire
    allowed for URIs from ASCII to Unicode [UNICODE]; [RFC3987bis]
    updates that definition to match the current usage of IRIs.

Peter

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

Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 21:09:30 UTC