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

LEIRIs [was: Minutes for XML Core Nov 5 f2f]

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:40:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020962907E@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
> Sent: Monday, 2007 November 05 17:15
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Minutes for XML Core Nov 5 f2f

> ======

> Martin's latest IRI draft is at:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-bis-01.txt
> The section about LEIRIs is section 7.
> In Martin's draft, in 6.2, it says:
>  Intermediate software interfaces between IRI-capable
>  components and URI-only components MUST map the IRIs
>  per Section 3.1, when transferring from IRI-capable
>  to URI-only components.  This mapping SHOULD be applied
>  as late as possible.  It SHOULD NOT be applied between
>  components that are known to be able to handle IRIs.
> We like that, and we wonder if we should do something 
> like that for LEIRIs or ask Martin to do something.
> MSM suggests we ask Martin to add an analogy to the 6.2 
> para to section 7, but let's not worry if he says no.

Did we do this?  Did anyone take the action to do this?

If not, can I ask that HENRY take an ACTION to write
an email to Martin (cc-ing the xml core list) about this?

> We asked whether we should reference "X and successors"
> or just "X" when referencing the RFC that defines LEIRIs.
> We did not resolve this.

Given that the whole point of LEIRIs is to define a legacy
thing so that the definition matches what is currently the
case in XML (and other) specs, I'm not sure which is more
appropriate here.

What do others think?

Received on Monday, 12 November 2007 15:40:47 UTC

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