- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:23:30 -0400
- To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Cc: Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Grosso, Paul scripsit: > The ID says something about becoming a BCP (Best Current Practice). > > Did you mean this? It doesn't make sense to me. I think HRRI should be Proposed Standard, the same as IRI. (New RFCs are always one of Proposed Standard, BCP, FYI, Experimental, and Informational. Proposed Standard can be changed to Draft Standard and later to Standard; any RFC can become Historic or just be obsoleted by another RFC.) > It (now) seems to some of us that it may be reasonable > for the process passing an HRRI to dereferencing software > to do the percent encoding. I guess that depends on whether the dereferencing software speaks URI or HRRI. If URI, then obviously the encoding has to be done before passing it in. -- Newbies always ask: John Cowan "Elements or attributes? http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Which will serve me best?" cowan@ccil.org Those who know roar like lions; Wise hackers smile like tigers. --a tanka, or extended haiku
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 20:23:39 UTC