Re: rdf-charmod-uris closed over objection [Fwd: IRI section needs too much testing to go in Fundamentals]

Dan Connolly wrote:

> I note that this issue...
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-charmod-uris
> was closed over the objection of 3 WG members, but it's
> not listed among the objections
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#Objections
> 
> Please fix.

Hi Dan,

Speaking for myself, whilst I disagreed with the WG decision at the 
time, it was not and still is not my intention to lodge a formal 
objection.  The record shows accurately that I opposed the decision.  It 
does not show that I objected to it.  As I recall the process document 
requires me to jump through some hoops to lodge a formal objection.  I 
did not jump those hoops.

Of course, I want the record to be accurate.  Whilst I have taken care 
in the past to check with folks at varous stages of the process that all 
objections were accurately recorded, if Jos or Aaron feel that they did 
wish to formally object and this is not properly recorded then I will 
amend the issue tracking document.

Jos, Aaron - do you wish to have your opposition recorded as an 
objection in the issue tracking document?

Brian


> 
> Aaron, Jos, Brian, you might consider re-iterating your position
> as a comment on the charmod spec, ala the attached.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject:
> IRI section needs too much testing to go in Fundamentals
> From:
> connolly@w3.org (Dan Connolly)
> Date:
> Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:52:32 +0900
> To:
> www-i18n-comments@w3.org
> 
> 
> 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 Friday, 19 March 2004 05:00:03 UTC