W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2007

RE: Proposed resolution of HRRI/IRI discussion

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 08:18:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30201177AF8@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Richard Tobin" <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Cc: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, <public-iri@w3.org>

I'm about to hop a plane, but I don't think XPointer 
is a problem since it already refers to IRIs and
talks about escaping--see

However, I defer to folks like Richard who understand
this better.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp] 
> Sent: Thursday, 2007 November 01 5:15
> To: Richard Tobin; Richard Ishida; Grosso, Paul; 
> public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org; public-iri@w3.org
> Subject: 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 12:20:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:35 UTC