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

Why wouldn't the "Namespace" section say IRI ?  My "consistency" radar 
detector is going off :-)
Looking at WSA ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-core-20060509/ ) I 
see refs to both URIs and IRIs.  Near as I can tell it uses IRI when its 
talking in a more abstract sense, and uses URI when its talking about a 
particular string.  If we choose to follow this pattern then we need to 
look at each URI and decide which situation each one is in.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.



Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
09/22/2009 02:23 AM

To
Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Issue 7426 (URI vs IRI) (was Action 97)






> 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,

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves