- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 14:14:32 +0900
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>, "Leslie Daigle" <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
Hello Bjoern,
Please check XLink (1.0!) again. It does not use the term IRI
(because that's still a draft), but you will see that the content
of xlink:href can indeed be an IRI. The XLink spec also has some
nice examples; it's a pity that RFCs and Internet Drafts make
it difficult to use actual implementations.
Please also check XML Schema. There is a type called anyURI
(the name is mainly political), which also can be an IRI
(although again it doesn't say so).
A simple way to explain things is that everything is working
together except for me who is way behind on updating the
various drafts.
Regards, Martin.
At 18:44 01/07/05 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>* Larry Masinter wrote:
> >There are some minor edits, but more to the point, there was
> >a lengthy comment from Leslie Daigle (I think it is W3C Member-only
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-uri-ig/2001Mar/0040.html
> >right now, unfortunately).
>
>How will me mere mortals access what he wrote?
>
> >I don't think there's any chance that IRIs will "obsolete" URIs
> >in any meaningful sense, even if the IRI draft were to be approved
> >(which it has not been).
>
>So how and where do you expected IRIs to be used and implemented? For
>example, XLink 1.0 was just approved as recommendation (based on URIs),
>if one could not expect IRIs to be used in e.g. XLink 2.0, I have small
>hope that they could be used in upcoming XHTML versions.
>--
>Bj$B‹S(Bn H$B‹I(Brmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
>am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
>25899 Dageb$B—M(Bl { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/
Received on Friday, 6 July 2001 01:16:47 UTC