Re: Text for charmod last call comments [IRIEverywhere-27]

On Fri, 2004-04-02 at 16:25, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
[...]
> No guessing here, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/>:
[...]
> [...]
>   The World Wide Web (WWW, or simply Web) is an information space in
>   which the items of interest, referred to as resources, are identified
>   by global identifiers called Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs).
> [...]
> 
> This is a definition of "Web" that clearly excludes IRIs, isn't it?
> I really don't mind this by the way, URIs are a way too complex and
> confusing topic even for experts, adding yet an additional layer of
> complexity (IRIs) is a bad idea. IRIs should be called URIs and the
> IRI specification should obsolete the URI specification, that'd be
> way more useful for the community (which in cases like
> http://tidy.sf.net/bug/924809 thinks this has happend already).

Yes, your point is well made, and that's an appealling approach
to the IRIEverywhere-27 issue.

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#IRIEverywhere-27

There are lots of specification synchronization hassles...
for example, advancement of webarch is pending on the
RFC2396bis internet drafts stabilizing as an RFC, and I think
the target status is IETF Draft Standard, i.e. a specification
of stuff that's already deployed in an interoperable fashion.
A URI spec that has non-ascii characters wouldn't be a drop-in
replacement for things like HTTP 1.1 and probably various
other IETF specs. I suppose the impact on W3C specs like HTML
and XML and so on would be pretty small.

Maybe the synchronization hassles are dominated by the
overall benefit. I dunno.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?

Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 17:24:42 UTC