- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 02:17:47 +0900
- To: www-tag@w3.org, www-international@w3.org
FYI. >From: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org> >To: "'Leslie Daigle'" <leslie@thinkingcat.com>, <w3c-policy@apps.ietf.org> >Cc: <iab@iab.org>, <iesg@ietf.org> >Subject: RE: IAB discussions & IRIs >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 11:15:27 -0800 >Unfortunately, W3C groups have been using IRIs for >quite a while now, and they are already >part of several W3C technical specifications. >For example, the W3C XML Schema anyURI data >type: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#anyURI >is defined basically as an IRI; any XML >schema that has an "anyURI" data item is >using IRIs, not URIs, unless they supply >further restriction. > >It is a problem that there is not a stable >document that can be used to reference the >IRI concept, or one that notes what the >actual interoperability concerns and deployment >concerns might be. > >I think it would be a good idea to continue >to review process IRI spec even while there is >another document about generalized internationalized >identifiers are being written, so that all of the >issues specific to IRIs are reviewed: > > Bidi and IRIs > IDN > >as well as the specific issues with >Normalization. > >In a discussion with Ted Hardie, it sounded like some >of the deployment issues in the current document >are problematic enough that it might be useful >to separate out > > "IRI as a presentational string" >from > "IRI as a protocol element" > >and to split the document, so that IRI uses >in XML languages can be clarified, even if there >are issues with uses outside of XML. > >Larry >-- >http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 12:19:29 UTC