- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:46:03 -0500
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- CC: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Looks like I completely missed this thread when it came up a few weeks ago, and I'm now getting back to setting TAG agendas and priorities at least for the Thurs telcon, and possibly into Dec. Clearly there are important issues being discussed, and Jeni's opening note suggested that she'd welcome guidance from the TAG, and Larry has responded. Is now the time to schedule TAG discussion, or should we wait. As best I can tell, the right issues are on the table, and the right people are involved. Thank you. Noah On 11/3/2011 9:58 AM, Jeni Tennison wrote: > Thanks Martin, > > I have forwarded this on to the RDFWAWG and offered to help with creating relevant issues. > > I'm afraid I'm behind on the background here: is it that the IETF IRI WG is putting in place fixes to the IRI (etc) specs that will enable it to be more elegantly incorporated into HTML5 (ie mean that there don't have to be any "wilful violations" in the handling of URLs)? Is the outcome you're aiming for that the DOM eventually holds IRIs rather than URIs? > > Thanks, > > Jeni > > On 3 Nov 2011, at 06:41, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > >> Hello Jeni, >> >> Can you please forward the information below to the RDFa WG and other relevant parties? >> >> On 2011/11/03 3:07, Jeni Tennison wrote: >>> Larry, >>> >>> On 2 Nov 2011, at 17:30, Larry Masinter wrote: >>>> " This behaviour by HTML5 was the subject of a long-running issue [4], which I believe Larry was involved in, which was eventually resolved to give the specification we see today." >>>> >>>> The IRI/HTML5 issue is still being worked on actively. >>> >>> Ah right. What's the HTML issue or bug and what's the current status? >> >> The IETF IRI WG's mailing list is hosted by the W3C at >> public-iri@w3.org. >> >> Archives and subscription instructions are at >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/. >> >> Joining the WG is done by joining the mailing list, and there are no minimal time commitments, although any kind of contribution and help is appreciated. >> >> The list of documents, charter, and so on, can be found at >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/iri/. >> >> More information can be found on the tools page at >> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/. >> >> The list of issues can be found at >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/report/1 >> >> I very strongly suggest that you enter a new issue/new issues for the topic of RDFa in HTML. While these will be related to the generic HTML issues, they are not the same. >> >> To enter issues, you need a login, which you can obtain from http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/loginmgr/newlogin. >> >> >>>> " The RDFWAWG has opened rdfa-ISSUE-114 on this [10] which is on their agenda for discussion tomorrow. Do we have any advice for them?" >>>> >>>> My advice is that they make sure their requirements for IRI standards are clear and to get them accepted by the IETF IRI working group, which is chartered to develop a solution that meets the broader requirements not only for browsers (HTML5) but for other applications that need IRIs that have nothing to do with HTML except for the possibility of copy/paste. >>> >>> >>> I think that RDFa is only interested in IRIs because RDF is and RDFa wants to support all RDF. >> >> Well, RDF allows IRIs (and not just URIs) because this can often be very handy, e.g. in ontologies in languages that are written with non-ASCII characters,... The same applies to RDFa. >> >> Regards, Martin. >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2011 23:46:37 UTC