- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:56:12 -0800
- To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
This came up at the F2F [1]; we decided to reference the IRI spec in the same manner that SOAP and WSDL do; I agree that this isn't reflected well in the minutes, but I clearly remember that there was consensus. Jonathan currently has an AI to provide the editors with spec text that will accomplish this. I don't think this requires a new issue, unless anyone remembers that discussion differently and wishes to contest the decision. 1. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/01/17-ws-addr-minutes.html#urnIssue On Feb 11, 2005, at 3:41 AM, Hugo Haas wrote: > * Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org> [2005-01-28 17:19+0100] >> * Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> [2005-01-28 07:22-0800] >>> Yes, we shd reference RFC3986. We shd also consider referencing >>> RFC3987 (the IRI specification). >> >> The minutes don't record record this specifically, but I think it was >> discussed during the URI comparison issue discussion[1]. >> >> I agree on referencing RFC3986. > > I have updated the reference, as RFC3986 obsoletes RFC2396 as well as > the RFC2396bis drafts (our reference was basically broken). > >> With regards to RFC3987, I also agree with the intent as pointed out >> last week, and I'll check with Martin Dürst next week about the >> implications. > > After having talked with Martin, I do think that we should discuss > referencing RFC3987. The motivation for moving to IRIs is basically > explained at [2]. anyURI does cover IRIs, so changing the reference > would basically have little impact on our spec. > > Mark, would you like me to open a new issue about this? > > Cheers, > > Hugo > > 2. http://www.w3.org/International/articles/idn-and-iri/#why > -- > Hugo Haas - W3C > mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ > -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Saturday, 12 February 2005 00:56:19 UTC