- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:31:28 +0100
- To: www-tag@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 There are currently five documents in this space (that I am aware of): [URI] The current RFC governing URIs: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986 [IRI] The current RFC governing IRIs: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987 [IRI-BIS] The most recent draft of a planned update for the RFC governing IRIs: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-iri-bis-04 [LEIRI] A W3C Note defining Legacy Extended IRIs (extracted from [IRI-BIS]): http://www.w3.org/TR/leiri/ [WEBADDR] A preliminary draft of a possible RFC for Web Addresses (extracted from HTML5 [1]): http://www.w3.org/html/wg/href/draft.html [not yet in RFC format, converted version expected RSN] On the TAG telcon of 2009-04-17, there was some sense that this is too many specs in the same space. . . In order to contextualize and perhaps stimulate a possible effort to seek a rationalization here, here's _my_ understanding of how we got here. [URI] is the mature stage of a spec. which has been revised a number of times. It carries a certain amount of historical baggage with it, particularly its restriction to 7-bit characters, but that also ensures wide interoperability and preserves access to legacy applications. [IRI] was intended to address the needs of the expanding Internet and Web community, allowing most of Unicode into most parts of IRIs. Rather than require upgrades in a wide range of applications and uses, it did not set up IRIs as a _replacement_ for URIs across the board, but as a _complement_ to URIs. It therefore included an explicit trancoding algorithm, for converting IRIs to URIs. [IRI-BIS] was initiated by the editors of [IRI] to correct several errata to [IRI] and to address the exclusion from [IRI] of certain characters and character ranges. [LEIRI] had its origins in the XML family of W3C specifications. The XML specification itself [2], as well as a number of other XML-related specifications (including XML Base, XML Schema, XPointer Framework, XML Signature) all involve appeal to a process for converting arbitrary strings which are intended to identify web resources into URIs. They all incorporate more-or-less identical prose excerpted from the XLink specification [3] which specifies how this is to be done. The XML Core WG has long been unhappy with this state of affairs, and the impending release of new editions of several of these specs encouraged the WG to try to establish a single normative reference for the concept of a string for identifying web resources in XML documents and a process for converting them to URIs, which acknowledged and built on the IRI specification. After drafting a document to serve this purpose, discussion with the editors of [IRI-BIS] convinced all concerned that since a new version of the IRI spec was already in progress, the best thing to do, to respect precedent and to avoid unnecessary proliferation, was to include the relevant definitions in [IRI-BIS], and in fact that has been done [4]. Once it became apparent, however, that the progress of [IRI-BIS] to Draft Standard status was likely to be considerably delayed for reasons outside its editors' control, the Core WG, with the agreement and co-operation of the editors of [IRI-BIS], published [LEIRI] as a Working Group Note, so that the re-issue of new editions of the relevant XML-familty specs could go ahead. The intention is to issue a revision of [LEIRI] replacing its contents with a reference to [IRI-BIS] as soon as [IRI-BIS] becomes a Draft Standard. [WEBADDR] had in some ways a similar origin to [LEIRI], starting out as a section of the HTML5 spec which addressed the process by which existing browsers process strings to produce URIs which can be dereferenced. It differs from [LEIRI] in the exact set of characters which it escapes, and in the special handling it mandates for the encoding of characters in the 'query' part of a URI. I am sure that the above summaries can be improved. In particular it would be helpful have clear statements from their respective authors/owners as to what the _requirements_ for the three new documents ([IRI-BIS], [LEIRI] and [WEBADDR]) are. Only after we have those would it make sense to turn to the question of whether we can merge some or all of them. ht [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#urls [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-sysid [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/#link-locators [4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-iri-bis-04#section-7 - -- Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJ9yFQkjnJixAXWBoRAq5tAJwMb/0jpU6XwLbYNqyt2s4uNwTcQACdHx4B F/J04oFFOeDHZLTT9Y0qkT0= =f6+L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 15:32:03 UTC