- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:08:57 +0200
- To: 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>
Ian Hickson wrote: > ... >> Just define a URI scheme; use of ws IRIs will be defined automatically >> in terms of RFC 3987 (IRI experts, please correct me if I'm wrong). > > That's what I thought I had done; since you disagree that I had done that, > please provide the copy that you believe would do the job, so that we can > stop dancing around playing "warmer/colder" with this text. > ... I'm not going to write the spec for you. A definition of a URI describes it's ASCII-based syntax, it's purpose, and how it's used in the protocol. I think that's pretty clear from RFC 4395. > ... >> The source file that you feed into xml2rfc is an XML file using the >> RFC2629bis syntax. You control that file. Put into it what you need. > > There's no such file; the XML is generated by a script and posted straight > to the xml2rfc Web service. I have every intention of keeping this as > automatic as possible; I already have to go out of my way to make the > references to [WEBADDRESSES] and [HTML5] work, I really don't want to have > to start doing the same for IETF documents when I don't actually have to. Well, you asked how to do it, and I explained how it can be done. Apparently you're not happy with the answer, but that's all I can do from here. >>> I've read this, but as far as I can tell, "Always UTF-8" and "See IRI" >>> are both complete and accurate ways of addressing this. >>> >>> Since apparently neither of these options satisfies you, could you state >>> exactly what literal text would satisfy you? >> I already pointed you to RFC 5092 as relatively recent example, see >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5092#section-8>. > > I tried following the lead given in that draft, but it didn't satisfy you. > Could you provide literal text that would satisfy you? By putting in "See RFC3987"? See Joseph's reply to that, and in particular his proposal in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2009Sep/0001.html>. BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 5 September 2009 11:09:47 UTC