- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:18:50 +0200
- To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, uri@w3.org
John Cowan wrote: > Because there are a bunch of specs that define them either independently > or by reference to XLink, which is not a plausible place to centralize > them. The original idea was to write a separate W3C document or RFC, > but since the IRI RFC was being revised at the time, the opportunity to > add LEIRIs to it was available. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-duerst-iri-bis/> says: "Current state: dead". Any idea what's going on? > I agree that having such a specification is a Good Thing. There is > no unique way to map a string of Unicode characters to a URI; IRIs use > one approach, but if browsers use another, that should be written down > in the IRI RFC or elsewhere. I totally agree that if several specs share the same problem, the solution should be written down in a single place. That being said, I still don't see why it would be good to do in the IRI spec itself. BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 15:19:40 UTC