- From: Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:41:26 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: URI <uri@w3.org>, "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Hello uri@, [personal note, not representative of i18n wg] > >> > >>> URI scheme syntax. > >>> In ABNF terms using the terminals from the IRI > specifications: > >>> [RFC5238] [RFC3987] > >>> > >>> "ws" ":" ihier-part [ "?" iquery ] > >> That is even worse than before, because it now uses productions > from the > >> IRI spec defining *URI* syntax. > > > > ws: and wss: URLs are i18n-aware; why would we want to limit them > to > > ASCII? > > Because that's how URI and thus URLs are defined. I agree with Julian. If you are defining a URI syntax, you can't use IRI to do so. Section 2.5 of URI, however, does allow what you mean here, when it says: When a new URI scheme defines a component that represents textual data consisting of characters from the Universal Character Set [UCS], the data should first be encoded as octets according to the UTF-8 character encoding [STD63]; then only those octets that do not correspond to characters in the unreserved set should be percent- encoded. For example, the character A would be represented as "A", the character LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH GRAVE would be represented as "%C3%80", and the character KATAKANA LETTER A would be represented as "%E3%82%A2". If 'ws:' were defined as an IRI scheme, you could then use RFC 3987 to define its mapping to a URI. This is what is done in specs like XLink 1.1. Defining 'ws:' as an IRI scheme would not necessarily be a bad thing, but I've found that confusion tends to surround when an IRI is happily being an IRI and when it needs to be mapped down to a URI. > > > > I've deferred to RFC3987 to sidestep this issue. > > A URI is not a IRI. > > You can refer to the mapping, but that really needs a few more > words than "See RFC3987.". > It may not need many more words, but certainly a few more words. Best Regards, Addison Addison Phillips Globalization Architect -- Lab126 Chair -- W3C Internationalization WG Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture.
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 17:42:11 UTC