- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:42:04 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>, Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
On 04/29/2011 02:29 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: > > On Apr 29, 2011, at 15:17 , Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > <snip/> >>>> >>>> [[ >>>> Note: RFC2397's mapping of IRIs to URIs does not alter "%25" or >>>> punycoded domain names, which means that the IRIs >>>> <http://伝言.example/R&D> and <http://xn--9oqp94l.example/R%25D> will >>>> both be transformed to the URI to <http://xn--9oqp94l.example/R%25D>. >>>> RFC2397 section 3.2. "Converting URIs to IRIs" defines a function >>>> which produces a single IRI for any URI. When minting IRIs for RDF, >>>> it is encouraged to mint forms which can round trip to a URI form >>>> and back. >>>> ]] >>> >>> I think that the round-trip issue may not be clear (it is not 100% clear to me either:-). >> >> I, on the other hand, think the round-trip is a nice way to put it, and >> quite well defined (although, see my concern #1 below). >> An example of which IRI is produced from the URI above would help, though. >> > > My understanding is that, concentrating on the IDN case, the > IRI->punycode does not work in 100% cases, although the punycode->IRI > does. So round-trip would then mean using the punycode. This is also my reading of RFC3987. Hence my concern #2 below. > Is this what we want? I would sure prefer <http://伝言.example/R&D> to be the encouraged URI rather than <http://xn--9oqp94l.example/R&D> . pa > > Ivan > > > >>> Why not adding something like >>> >>> 'In other words, the use of %-escaped characters or punycode encoded IDN-s are strongly discouraged.' >> >> It definitely would not hurt. >> >> I have three concerns, though: >> >> 1/ from what I read in RFC3987, section 3.2, the mapping from URI to IRI >> is not completely specified (refering to section 6.1 of that same RFC) >> >> 2/ the URI-to-IRI described in section 3.2 does not eliminate punycode. >> So <http://伝言.example/R&D> is *not* round-trip-safe, but >> <http://xn--9oqp94l.example/R&D> is. >> >> 3/ it should be made very clear that this is about minting IRIs from >> scratch or from URIs, but *not* about converting IRIs (as IRIs that >> would convert to the same URI are not consider equivalent). >> >> pa >> >> >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Ivan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -Alex >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -ericP >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >>>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -ericP >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > >
Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 13:42:34 UTC