- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:53:21 +0200
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- 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 Apr 29, 2011, at 15:42 , Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > 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> . Absolutely. But that means referring to round-tripping is _not_ what we want there! Ivan > > 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 >> >> >> >> >> > ---- 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 13:52:18 UTC