- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:45:10 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, uri@w3.org
Julian Reschke scripsit: > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-duerst-iri-bis/> says: > "Current state: dead". Any idea what's going on? That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even Death may die. Seriously, I don't know. Ask Martin. > 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. If you mean LEIRIs, they are an upward compatible extension of IRIs, they are deprecated (there is no reason to use a LEIRI that is not an IRI, as there is always an equivalent IRI: "http://example.com/<>" is a valid LEIRI, but can be replaced with the IRI (and URI) "http://example.com/%3C%3E"), and it was expedient to put them into the IRI spec rather than swallowing the lead time of a new spec for a legacy feature. If you mean these browser *RIs, then I agree that they don't belong in the IRI spec, as they have an incompatible mapping of Unicode to URIs. -- Do what you will, John Cowan this Life's a Fiction cowan@ccil.org And is made up of http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Contradiction. --William Blake
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 15:45:55 UTC