- From: Dave McAlpin <Dave.McAlpin@epok.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:05:25 -0500
- To: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>
I think I expected something stronger, like advice that the scheme's syntax should be defined in terms of both 3986 and 3987. I imagine future schemes including an appendix, possibly non-normative, with ABNF based on 3987 for applications that natively support IRIs. I just wondered if it was too early to offer that as a best practice. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Larry Masinter [mailto:LMM@acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:56 AM To: Dave McAlpin Cc: uri@w3.org Subject: RE: New URI registration draft; significant changed > Should best practices with respect to internationalization be > revisited now that RFC 3987 is available? Do you think section 2.5 is adequate? http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-gui deli nes-03.txt or http://larry.masinter.net/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-03 .htm l#charguide -- Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.305 / Virus Database: 266.3.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 18:05:38 UTC