- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:27:44 -0800
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
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