- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 01:58:34 +0900
- To: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>, "'William A. Rowe, Jr.'" <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>, "'Chris Haynes'" <chris@harvington.org.uk>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>, <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>
At 18:40 02/07/20 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote: >I think you're asking a fairly confusing question. > >I was asked to propose a charter for a group to update >the URI spec, and I proposed *NOT* introducing -- into >the same specification -- the IRI concepts. An IRI isn't >a URI, it's something else. They're related, but different. I agree. Pointing out the relationships in the new URI spec is a good idea, but the two specs should stay separate (in particular also because the IRI spec is further along the path than the URI update). >Whether one wants to create a version of HTTP which >uses IRIs instead of URIs is a completely separate >issue which the IRI group might consider but would >be out of scope for the URI update. Well, rather than the 'IRI group' (which is actually the W3C Internationalization WG), this should be considered by the HTTP folks. >Since "uri@w3.org" seems to be open to more general >discussions, perhaps we need another list whose focus >is the narrower topic of URI update. For the moment, I think using the same list is okay. If we get a real WG, we can create a new list. I guess W3C may be able to host it. Regards, Martin.
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 08:20:49 UTC