IRI section needs too much testing to go in Fundamentals

This is a last call comment from Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org) on
the Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/).

Semi-structured version of the comment:

Submitted by: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Submitted on behalf of (maybe empty): 
Comment type: substantive
Chapter/section the comment applies to: 7 Character Encoding in URI References
The comment will be visible to: public
Comment title: IRI section needs too much testing to go in Fundamentals
Comment:
The technology in this section is much less mature than, for example,
the excellent and much-needed definitions in section 3 (character encoding scheme and such).

Those terms merit W3C Recommendation status immediately, if not sooner.
Please don't put this material in the critical path for getting
them done.

The text of section 7, esp "Specifications that define protocol or format elements (e.g. HTTP headers, XML attributes, etc.) which are to be interpreted as URI references (or specific subsets of URI references, such as absolute URI references, URIs, etc.) SHOULD use Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)  (or an appropriate subset thereof)." merits
a substantial Candidate Recommendation phase.

The RDF Core WG had a related issue...
  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-charmod-uris
but never reached consensus on it. The issue was closed
consistently with the text above, but over the objections
of two implementors and the WG chair.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0474.html

The W3C TAG has studied the issue at length
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#IRIEverywhere-27
and has found a variety of positions on the issue,
none of which is the clear winner yet.
(personally, I think this is a pretty good summary of
the options: http://esw.w3.org/topic/IRIEverywhere)


Please strike section 7 from this document and move it elsewhere.



Structured version of  the comment:

<lc-comment
  visibility="public" status="pending"
  decision="pending" impact="substantive" id="LC-">
  <originator email="connolly@w3.org"
      >Dan Connolly</originator>
  <represents email=""
      >-</represents>
  <charmod-section href='http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-charmod-20040225/#sec-URIs'
    >7</charmod-section>
  <title>IRI section needs too much testing to go in Fundamentals</title>
  <description>
    <comment>
      <dated-link date="2004-03-18"
         href="http://www.w3.org/mid/219119054.20040318235232@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp"
        >IRI section needs too much testing to go in Fundamentals</dated-link>
      <para>The technology in this section is much less mature than, for example,
the excellent and much-needed definitions in section 3 (character encoding scheme and such).

Those terms merit W3C Recommendation status immediately, if not sooner.
Please don&#x27;t put this material in the critical path for getting
them done.

The text of section 7, esp &#x22;Specifications that define protocol or format elements (e.g. HTTP headers, XML attributes, etc.) which are to be interpreted as URI references (or specific subsets of URI references, such as absolute URI references, URIs, etc.) SHOULD use Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)  (or an appropriate subset thereof).&#x22; merits
a substantial Candidate Recommendation phase.

The RDF Core WG had a related issue...
  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-charmod-uris
but never reached consensus on it. The issue was closed
consistently with the text above, but over the objections
of two implementors and the WG chair.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0474.html

The W3C TAG has studied the issue at length
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#IRIEverywhere-27
and has found a variety of positions on the issue,
none of which is the clear winner yet.
(personally, I think this is a pretty good summary of
the options: http://esw.w3.org/topic/IRIEverywhere)


Please strike section 7 from this document and move it elsewhere.
</para>
    </comment>
  </description>
</lc-comment>

Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 18:52:35 UTC