Re: (ACTION) On a new grammar for IRIs

 > So I'll be happier with a proposal to replace the current ixml grammars
 > in the samples/URI directory, or add one or more additional ones, if the
 > README file can avoid condescending to the technical specifications of
 > URIs and IRIs.  But maybe that's a pipe dream.

Oh I wasn't suggesting replacing anything, just adding a grammar that I 
believe is in general more useful for dealing with IRIs than the RFC one.

I agree that what I wrote about the RFC grammar sounded negative. As I 
point out in my paper "On the design of the URL" 
(https://cwi.nl/~steven/Talks/2020/10-09-urls/design.html), the authority 
part of a URI is defined by the scheme, and not by the definition of a URI 
(except to the level of which characters may be used), and so the RFC for 
IRIs doesn't have the freedom to fully describe IRIs as they are actually 
used.

But you asked for a description of why I created my grammar for IRIs, and 
that's what you got. I have long had to fight the chain of RFCs to get to 
the ground truth of what is allowed where. Internationalised mail addresses 
was one of the hardest. My definition of IRIs reveals the underlying 
structure of what's there, which whatever you might say, is for me the main 
reason ixml exists.

Steven

Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2024 11:32:17 UTC