W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2003

IRIs [was: [Minutes] 17 Mar 2003 TAG teleconf...]

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:34:49 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030317172007.01cc1c30@172.27.10.30>
To: www-tag@w3.org

At 17:52 2003 03 17 -0500, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:


>                   Minutes of 17 Mar 2003 TAG teleconference


>  2.2 New issue? Forward references / decoupling specs / IRIs
>
>   Related issues: [22]IRIEverywhere-27
>
>     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#IRIEverywhere-27
>
>   [timbl]
>          Problems with XInclude moving to Rec include normative
>          reference to Xpointer, charmod, and [23]IRI spec. (Never mind
>          parse=xml)
>
>     [23] http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/
>
>   [DanC]
>          (pointer to this thing that's been pending for too long?)
>
>   [DanC]
>          we said IRIs are good? when/where?
>
>   [Ian]
>          TBL: Xpointer referenced for issues about frag id; points to
>          charmod for XML parsing; points to IRI spec with caveats.
>
>   [Chris]
>          we said people should prepare for IRI, do it by copy and paste,
>          and be ready to eratta once IRI was set in stone
>          this seems to be exactly whatthey did
>
>   [Ian]
>          TBL: XInclude spec says the WG plans to revise spec when IRI
>          spec is finished.
>
>   [Chris]
>          tbl: no IRI in test suite
>
>   [Ian]
>          TBL: Arch questions - how to decouple the specs?
>
>   [DanC]
>          (reviewing our records, I find no decisions re
>          IRIEverywhere-27)
>
>   [Ian]
>          TBL: No matter how the IRI spec comes out, it won't affect
>          reviews of XPointer. But it will affect conformance of
>          software. I think that what XInclude authors wrote in their
>          spec may not be helpful since it may lead to operability
>          problems when the spec is changed.
>          NW: I thought I had been told that I could tell Core WG that
>          TAG was in favor of IRIs.
>          CL: I understood that, too.
>
>   [DanC]
>          We have decided *exactly* what our records say we have decided,
>          no?
>
>   [Chris]
>          so, they did exactly the right think on IRI reference
>
>   [Ian]
>          CL: IRIs not on Rec track; but is headed to being standard.
>          CL: The piece that CL/MD/IJ wrote is now outdated.
>          Action CL/IJ: Revise this IRI summary by next week; send to
>          www-tag.
>
>   [Norm]
>          Charmod references the IETF I-D IRI
>
>   [Chris]
>          norm - thanks
>
>   [Ian]
>          CL: Specs like XML Schema have similar wording; they cut and
>          paste - don't make normative ref.
>
>   [DanC]
>          For the record: The TAG has not made any decisions on
>          IRIEverywhere. Hence I'm not party to any advice anybody's
>          giving outside the TAG on this issue. I'd much prefer actions
>          to advise other groups waited until we'd decided the issue.


The XML Core WG has at least three specs going to PR within the month:
XML 1.1, Namespaces 1.1, and XInclude 1.0.  On what we thought was
direction from the TAG, we put IRIs into all these specs.

Now that it's been said that the TAG didn't tell us to put IRIs into
these specs, and given that having IRIs in these specs is causing
trouble, what would be the effect of the XML Core WG's pulling IRIs
out of these three specs and just going back to URIs?  Would that
force us to go back to Last Call?  

We have specs that, presumably, the W3C membership would like to see 
become Recs, but it is unclear to me how to make that happen. 

paul
Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 18:37:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:58 UTC