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

We have walked through instance by instance in WS-RA specs. Perhaps, we can do a similar walk through as a Working Group.

And, are there other exceptions where s/URI/IRI/g do not apply?

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation

From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 7:30 AM
To: Asir Vedamuthu
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org; Yves Lafon
Subject: 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