RE: last call comments, usage of IRI rather than URI

My reply did not make it to www-tag@w3.org.  I am sending it again to
make sure it is archived here.

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
<mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com> 


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Cotton 
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 4:44 PM
To: 'Julian Reschke'; www-tag@w3.org
Cc: xml-names-editor@w3.org
Subject: RE: last call comments, usage of IRI rather than URI

> Question: did I miss publication of a TAG finding? If so, where is it?

No. But [1] records the discussion by the TAG at its recent F2F and the
direction of the finding to be drafted for future consideration by Tim
Bray:

>TB proposal: 
>- We view IRI activity with favor. 
>- Software should prepare for IRIs 
>- IRI spec not done, practices such as XML 1.0 sys id seem to be
>reasonable, but they need to figure out how to bring themselves into
sync >with IRIs when they become available

/paulc

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/11/18-tag-summary#IRIEverywhere-27 


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
<mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com> 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de]
> Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 3:18 PM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Cc: xml-names-editor@w3.org
> Subject: RE: last call comments, usage of IRI rather than URI
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> quoting Richard Tobin [1]:
> 
> > This is a formal response from the XML Core WG to your comments on
the
> > Namespaces in XML 1.1 last call working draft.
> >
> > If we haven't heard from you by the end of Monday December 9th, we
> > will assume for the purposes of our planned CR request that you have
> > no objection to our resolution.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Summary: rejected
> >
> > We decided that we should not make a decision on this ourselves, so
we
> > consulted the Technical Architecture Group, and their view was that
we
> > should use IRIs.  It is likely that an increasing numbers of
> > recommendations will specify the use of IRIs; Namespaces is just one
> > of the first to refer to them explicitly.
> >
> > We will include a warning that authors should stick to URIs during
> > a transitional period.
> >
> > -- Richard Tobin, Namespaces 1.1 editor
> 
> Question: did I miss publication of a TAG finding? If so, where is it?
> 
> Remarks:
> 
> - The IRI spec isn't finished. As long as it isn't, no other spec that
> normitively builds on it can become an RFC / recommendation /
standards
> document. In particular, other specs should not use the term IRI and
> attempt
> to come up with their own definition of what a IRI is. (I can't
believe I
> have to say this, but it seems to be necessary...). Now this may have
been
> fixed by now, but the latest draft I can see is still dated September
5
> and
> has it's own definition of IRIs in it [2].
> 
> - It has been demonstrated that using IRI (refs) as namespace names
breaks
> existing XML applications (such as XML Schema, schemaLocation
attribute)
> and
> APIs (JAXP). I'd like to understand why this isn't considered a
problem.
> 
> 
> Wondering,
> 
> Julian
> 
> [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-
> editor/2002Nov/0020.html>
> [2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xml-names11-20020905/#IRIs>
> 
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>

Received on Friday, 29 November 2002 12:49:38 UTC