Re: Issue 7426 (URI vs IRI) (was Action 97)

+1
All the best, Ashok


Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
>> Yves, Doug and Asir discuss on this on public mailing list to get a proposal ready for next week
>>     
>
> Based on how similar issues were addressed in the WS-Addressing [1] and WS-Policy [2] Working Groups, here is a proposed amendment to Yves' proposal:
>
> In WS-RA specs, globally replace URI with IRI with the following exceptions:
>
> * Section X.X Namespaces. No need to say Namespace IRI here.
> * xs:anyURI. This is a proper name, and the datatype accommodates IRIs.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0171 
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0073
>
> Regards,
>
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> Microsoft Corporation
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yves Lafon
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 7:20 AM
> To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
> Subject: Issue 7426 (URI vs IRI) (was Action 97)
>
> Hi,
> After reading the status or URI/IR support in the specification linked to 
> ours, it turns out that they all support IRIs apart from WSDL 1.0 which is 
> seilent on the subject.
> So we should do the following:
>
> In all our spec, replace URI by IRI, and any reference to RFC3986 to 
> RFC3987.
> Cheers,
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 14:22:06 UTC