- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:04:16 +0900
- To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:08:07 +0900, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > > * Vincent Quint wrote: >> * 1. Issue IRIEverywhere-27[17]: long discussion[18] in >> Edinburgh > > I could not find an agenda or minutes of that meeting in the www-tag > archives... I am surprised to see "the original question was, should XML > use IRI? Now that it has a definition that's been agreed upon, yes, they > should". > > As XML and most formats based on XML allow use of non-Unicode encodings, > allowing IRIs in such formats would make the formats inconsistent with > the architectural requirements set forth in the reference processing > model http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/#sec-RefProcModel > and http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/#C014 in particular. Could you please elaborate why - in your opinion - the use of IRIs is against the reference processing model? Best regards, Felix. > > I don't think the reference character processing model should be changed > and it seems inappropriate for the TAG to encourage creating formats > that violate absolute requirements of W3C's own Character Model for the > World Wide Web. So I don't think the TAG's resolution should be as cited > above.
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2005 13:04:44 UTC