- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 28 Apr 2003 22:44:34 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
- Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 18:20, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > 1. Roy Fielding is concerned about the fact that the IRI spec isn't > > finished, saying "it would be ridiculous to say we support IRIs" when > > it isn't clear yet what they are. > > Actually, what I said is that it is absurd to recommend IRIs when the > IRI definition is unknown, and that absurdity is demonstrated by the > technical errors now present in the namespaces 1.1 CR section 9. > > > I share concerns about the wording in the namespaces draft, BTW. Roy > > suggested that it should be reworded to say that no canonicalization > > is required before namespace comparison rather than say that ~wilbur, > > %7ewilbur, and %7Ewilbur "are different", because in fact per the RFCs > > they're not different. But this wouldn't stop me saying that it's OK > > to start writing in support for internationalized identifiers. > > More importantly, it is because the namespaces draft cannot declare them > to be different because a normalizer has every right (and in some cases > a responsibility) to normalize those URIs before the namespace processor > even sees them. For example? I find this argument hard to follow without a concrete example here. > Namespaces would therefore be violating the definition > of > URIs by declaring them to be different in spite of their equivalence. > Therefore, Namespaces shouldn't say that the namespaces (identified) > are different, even for a limited purpose. What it should say is that > the identifier is assumed to be in normal form (because consistency has > its own rewards) and that no additional normalization is required > prior to comparison (for efficiency reasons), noting that *because* of > this decision, inconsistent use of equivalent URIs in the namespace > attributes will result in a regrettable, but not fatal, false negative > match when they are mixed within the same process. Authors are > therefore > encouraged to be consistent for the sake of efficiency. > > That applies to both IRIs and URIs. In fact, it applies to anything > that might appear in those attributes: there is no technical need for > the Namespace attribute syntax and processing to be dependent on IRIs > and URIs. There is a social need, but that can be accomplished without > introducing dependencies on nonexistent specifications. > > > In any case, at the moment, we're paralyzed on this issue because of > > these unresolved differences. This is on the face of it at one level > > ridiculous, because the first W in WWW stands for "World" and it's a > > no-brainer that identifiers ought to include non-ASCII characters. [...] -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 23:44:13 UTC