Re: Referencing the IRI RFC (was Re: Snapshots of the drafts for review)

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 

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.


On Feb 11, 2005, at 3:41 AM, Hugo Haas wrote:

> * Hugo Haas <> [2005-01-28 17:19+0100]
>> * Ashok Malhotra <> [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.
> -- 
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> -

Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems

Received on Saturday, 12 February 2005 00:56:19 UTC