- From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 18:06:28 -0700
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Jean, I can go either way: (a) include a tentative resolution in the spec now and update later, or (b) leave the issue open for a while and resolve it later all at once. Since we're not pressed to resolve this issue right now, why don't we do (b) as you suggest. --Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:00 AM To: Jeffrey Schlimmer Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: Re: W3C WSDL WG: 6b. Define encoding for non-ASCII characters in request URL Jeff, I agree this ought be an easy issue. However [6] is in Last Call, and contains a pretty strong requirement that "W3C specifications [...] SHOULD use Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRI) [2] (or an appropriate subset thereof)." We seem to be (at least) some months away from Last Call ourselves, and I am wondering whether it is not more desirable to see how the landscape evolves and then make a more informed judgement. What do you think? Jean-Jacques. [6] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/#sec-URIs Jeffrey Schlimmer wrote: > PROPOSAL > > Until IRIs are standardized, follow URI Escaping as outlined XML > Include. > > REFERENCES > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/cover.html > [2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-00.txt > [3] ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2396.txt > [4] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2718.txt?number=2718 > [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/ > > EOF
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2002 21:06:55 UTC