Re: F2F session on IRI and RFC 3023bis

Thank you. I'll integrate this with the agenda, though not necessarily today.

Noah

On 6/2/2011 6:07 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Noah Mendelsohn writes:
>
>> Henry: on the telcon last week you asked for "1/2 slot" on RFC 3023bis
>> and IRI. Time is very tight on the agenda, but I've tentatively put in
>> 30 mins as you requested. It's probably my shortsightedness, but your
>> brief description wasn't sufficiently evocative to prepare a detailed
>> agenda, require reading, action list, etc.
>
> These two long-delayed RFCs interact with each other and with a number
> of our concerns.
>
> Things to talk about:
>
>   1) 3023bis [1] and fragment identifiers -- We discussed this a year
>      ago [2] and came to a conclusion, which Noah took an action [3] to
>      convey to the 3023 editors.  There was substantial pushback [4].
>      Jonathan reported on our further discussion to the 3023 editors
>      [5], setting out a number of alternative ways forward.  Chris
>      Lilley replied [6] stating a preference for option 2.
>
>      But nothing has happened. . .  Time to put a TAG push behind a new
>      draft of 3023bis?
>
>   2) 3023bis and Processor Profiles -- The XML Core WG has produced a
>      Last Call WD for XML Processing Profiles [7].  Would 3023bis be
>      the _architecturally_ correct place to connect this to XML itself?
>
>   3) IRIbis and HTML5 'URIs' -- The HTML WG has removed all reference
>      to 3987bis, but the IRI WG is exploring ways to get back in:
>
>        "In March 2011, the W3C's HTML WG made a decision to close
>         ISSUE-56 when the parties involved could not come to agreement
>         on aligning HTML5 with the IRI WG's revisions to RFC 3987:
>
>        "http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0404.html
>
>        "That decision effectively removed the HTML5 specification's
>         dependency on rfc3987bis.  It appears that this was done so
>         that the HTML5 specification could define how to translate
>         input strings contained in text/html documents into URIs.
>
>         . . .
>
>        "However, our understanding is that ISSUE-56 can be reopened if
>         new information emerges, such as "IETF completing production of
>         a document suitable as a formal reference".  And of course as
>         chairs of the IRI WG we would like to deliver such a document." [8]
>
>      Can we help?  Should we try?
>
> ht
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/latest.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/06/9-minutes.html#item03
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/441
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/449
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/476
> [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Nov/0095.html
> [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xml-proc-profiles-20110412/
> [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2011May/0026.html
> - --
>         Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>        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 from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFN52D7kjnJixAXWBoRAn0sAJ9Y1JJwlUM8IXpIlm8bCvxa8bN33ACfXNoa
> CKpfIC04z+oGx8qKG7fB4oQ=
> =pc2L
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 14:27:05 UTC