- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:20:10 -0400
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Norman Walsh scripsit: > > Systems accepting IRIs MAY also deal with the printable characters in > > US-ASCII that are not allowed in URIs, namely "<", ">", '"', space, > > "{", "}", "|", "\", "^", and "`", in step 2 above. If these > > characters are found but are not converted, then the conversion > > SHOULD fail. Please note that the number sign ("#"), the percent > > sign ("%"), and the square bracket characters ("[", "]") are not part > > of the above list and MUST NOT be converted. Protocols and formats > > that have used earlier definitions of IRIs including these characters > > MAY require percent-encoding of these characters as a preprocessing > > step to extract the actual IRI from a given field. This > > preprocessing MAY also be used by applications allowing the user to > > enter an IRI. > > How does the XML Core WG feel about this interpretation? > > Certainly, if we can comfortably conclude that everywhere we're > thinking of using HRRIs (and everywhere we can imagine wanting to in > the future) we can already say "it's an IRI", that simplifies things. I'm in favor of this, particularly as it bypasses the waiting time for HRRI to become a proper RFC. But I don't quite see what language to use to indicate that this paragraph (which does not have a distinctive label, alas) should be in effect for XML, Namespaces 1.1, XLink, etc. etc. Can someone think up a proper invocation? -- Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old child John Cowan could understand this report. Run out cowan@ccil.org and find me a four-year-old child. I http://www.ccil.org/~cowan can't make head or tail out of it. --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 05:23:29 UTC