Re: draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03, section 6

On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 09:26  AM, Martin Duerst wrote:
> 6.1, second paragraph (starting: "Even thought it is possible..."):
>      Please add an example here, or at least a clarifying sentence
>      such as:
>      For example, an owner of two different domain names could
>      decide to serve the same resource from two completely
>      different URIs.

Done.

> 6.2 "distinguished by the amount of processing required and the
>      degree to which the probability of false negatives is reduced"
>     Please add "the degree to which a method can be defined
>     exactly and reproducibly, not relying on scheme-specific
>     knowledge". For applications such as xml namespaces and
>     RDF, this is an overranging consideration, even more
>     important than the often cited processing requirement.

But it has nothing to do with the rest of that sentence, which
is talking about the range of methods presented in 6.2.

> 6.2 "starting with those that": I think this would be easier
>     to read if you changed to "starting with those practices that"

Done.

> 6.2.1 After "Java String object" add "(UTF-16)". Not everybody
>     is familiar with the fact that Java Strings do not use ASCII.

Done.

> 6.2.1 "Thus, in principle, it is better to speak": Please
>     remove "in principle", and change the relative "it is better
>     to speak" to something absolute such as "the correct term is".

I just removed the qualifiers.

> 6.2.1, last paragraph: "Unicode defines a character as ...":
>     Please remove this paragraph. It is more confusing than
>     helpful in the ASCII-only context of this document and
>     this section.

Done (with some bits moved to prior paragraph).

> 6.2.2: It may be better to move 6.2.2.2 (escape normalization)
>     before 6.6.6.1 (case normalization). The main reason is that
>     this would make it clearer that %a3 <-> %A3 is escape
>     normalization, not case normalization.

That part is a case issue, so I moved it above with a reference below.

> 6.2.2.1 Case Normalization: it is strange to have a (subsub)section
>     entitled 'normalization', but not saying which way is the
>     normalized one. Please either copy/move some text from 6.3
>     up, or add a pointer refering to 6.3 for details.

I don't see that, so I probably already fixed it.

>     Also, please add a note here explicitly saying that not all
>     parts of an URI are case-insensitive. People too much used
>     to a certain brand of operating system may otherwise tend
>     to forget.

Okay.

> 6.2.3 Scheme-based Normalization: Again, this only speaks about
>     equivalence, not saying that if possible, the port number
>     should be omitted. And this is not even mentioned in 6.3.

Fixed already.

> 6.3 Canonical Form: I think this title raises the wrong expectations,
>     namely that there is always a single canonical form. The section
>     however just gives advice. So a title such as "Best Practice"
>     seems more appropriate.

Removed the editorial justification.

....Roy

Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 01:27:30 UTC