RE: Proposed resolution of HRRI/IRI discussion

Hello Richard, others,

In the future, please don't hesitate to just send your comments
directly. This one definitely didn't need the formal backing of
the XML Core WG to convince me. But it's definitely good to hear
that the XML Core WG otherwise is okay with how things are moving.
Any comments on the other parts of the IRI spec would also be
very much appreciated; the more eyes that have read the whole
spec, the easier it is to move it ahead in the IETF.

Tracking things, I found that the U+FFF0-FFFD range wasn't mentioned
in Henry's mail, so that's why it ended up outside of Legacy Extended IRIs.
I have fixed that in my internal copy. I'll inform you when I'm
publishing the next version.

The reason for excluding these was that replacement characters and
such don't really represent characters. Creating an IRI with e.g.
a replacement character doesn't make sense, and if you got one, it's
probably due to some data loss.

Anyway, I think these need to be added to the iprivate production,
too, because it should be able to use them in query parts.

On a separate note, I recently received some comment saying that
there may be a problem with using '[' and ']' in fragment identifiers
(e.g. XPointer). I haven't received premission to send this mail
to a public list yet, but I'd appreciate if you could check this,
and if necessary propose some fix.

With kind regards,   Martin.

At 18:17 07/11/01, Richard Tobin wrote:
>
>> If you want to know what those codepoints are, go here:
>> http://rishida.net/scripts/uniview/?range=FFF0:FFFF&utf8=false&displayStyle=
>> list&char=FFF9
>
>Yes, but why are they excluded from legacy extended IRIs?
>
>-- Richard


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp

Received on Thursday, 1 November 2007 10:48:30 UTC