FW: Re: [EMMA] i18n comment: Definition of URI not normative

 

 

I18N-6: ACCEPT

=====================================================

A. From I18N:

email: 

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2007May/0006.html

At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0704-emma/

Editorial/substantive: S

Owner: RI

 

Location in reviewed document:

2.1 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-emma-20070409/#s4.2.5]

definition of URI informative

 

Comment: 

A definition of URI is given in the Terminology section that defines it
in

terms of RFC 3986 and XML Schema Part 2:Datatypes, but that section is
not 

normative. We think the definition of URI should be normative.

 

B. Minutes from discussion in the EMMA subgroup:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-mmi-wg/2007May/0054.html

 

C. Proposed Response:

 

ACCEPT

 

Comment:

We will reference RFC 3896 and RFC 3987 where the document first 

uses the term "URI" in normative text (section 3.2). We will use the
following

text following from the example in XQuery.

 

"Within this specification, the term URI refers to a Universal Resource 

Identifier as defined in [RFC3986] and extended in [RFC3987] with the
new 

name IRI. The term URI has been retained in preference to IRI to avoid 

introducing new names for concepts such as "Base URI" that are defined
or 

referenced across the whole family of XML specifications."