- From: <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:15:26 +0100
- To: public-Webapps@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org
Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20090618/ Comment 1 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets/ Editorial/substantive: S Tracked by: AP Location in reviewed document: - Comment: We second Martin's comments at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2009AprJun/0067.html. The term URI appears to mean URI and *not* IRI universally here. No non-ASCII paths are given in examples and the relationship to IRI is not specified. The Packaging and Configuration spec mentions encodings and permits the full range of Unicode in file names, so the lack of specificity is at least an oversight. I suspect that, depending on the use of the URI, they really do mean IRI here, though. Packaging and Configuration strongly suggests the use of the UTF-8 encoding for Zip relative paths and human-readable (native encoded) URIs would be more in keeping with the usability desires of web-apps.
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 19:15:39 UTC