- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:24:52 -0400
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, pgrosso@ptc.com
- CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Henry and Paul, I've updated the agenda based on your suggestions. See [1]. Thank you for your help with this. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/06/06-agenda.html#rfc3023iri 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 Saturday, 4 June 2011 17:25:18 UTC