- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:14:10 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
I have some minor comments that we can keep for the next draft/RFC and then I have a question (below). > -----Original Message----- > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh > Sent: Wednesday, 2007 April 25 11:49 > To: internet-drafts@ietf.org > Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org; Richard Tobin > Subject: Internet draft submission: draft-walsh-tobin-hrri-00 > > Attached, please find a document submitted for publication as > an Internet Draft. For your convenience, you will also find a copy > of it on the web at: fwiw, it still says: such as delimiters and a few ASCII characters whereas Richard had suggested such as delimiters and a few other ASCII characters in section 2 (Motivation). --- Richard had also suggestion (in section 2) changing converting that string to an IRI to converting that string to a URI or IRI --- I see we now first mention HRRI in section 3 after the bullet points (in fact, in a sentence about what is NOT an HRRI). I would prefer to see us first mention it at the beginning of section 3, to wit: A Human Readable Resource Identifier (HRRI) is a sequence... ========= I know we discussed this, but now I'm confused. Why don't we talk about percent-encoding percents? We say "%%%" is an invalid HRRI. Is "ab%d" an invalid HHRI? If not, then don't we need to percent-encode the %? And if we are percent-encoding percents, in what way is "%%%" an invalid HRRI? Shouldn't one percent-encode the percents thereby producing a valid IRI? paul
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 17:14:33 UTC