RE: Proposal for LC303 (was: What are the exemptions for use of IRI? )

Thanks. I like your friendly amendments.

Best Regards,



[] On Behalf Of Rogers, Tony
	Sent: Tuesday, Sep 20, 2005 4:17 PM
	To: Liu, Kevin; Jonathan Marsh; Hugo Haas
	Subject: RE: Proposal for LC303 (was: What are the exemptions
for use of IRI? )
	As a card-carrying pedant, I must urge the use of the word
"simplicity" rather than "simplification", as the second word of the
second paragraph. I suggest replacing "you might want to" with "you
might care to" in the second sentence of the same paragraph - yeah,
yeah, "wordsmithing" (but I AM a wordsmith!).
	I like this change - it is simple and clear - these are good
properties for a standard, and particularly a primer.
	Tony Rogers <> 


[] On Behalf Of Liu, Kevin
	Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2005 9:10
	To: Jonathan Marsh; Hugo Haas
	Subject: Proposal for LC303 (was: What are the exemptions for
use of IRI? )
	If that's the case, I propose to add the following paragraph to
the end of section 1.3 "Notational Conventions"

		The core specification of WSDL 2.0 supports
Internationalized Resource Identifiers or IRIs [add reference to <>
<> ].  IRIs are a
superset of URIs with added support for internationalization. The URI
syntax [add reference to
<> ] only allows the use of  a small set
of characters, including upper and lower case letters of the English
alphabet, European numerals and a few symbols. IRIs  allow the use of
characters from a wider range of language scripts.  
		For simplification, examples throughout this primer only
use URIs.  If you are interested in the use of IRIs, you might want to
read the paper [add reference to
<> ] prepared by
the W3C Internationalization Activity [add link to <> ]. 

	Alternatively, If people are concerned that use of IRI is not
really a "notational convention", we may add a subsection under
"Introduction" for "Use of URI and IRI" with the same content as above.
The new structure of section 1 now looks like
	1. Introduction
	    1.1 Prerequisites
	    1.2 Structure of this Primer
	    1.3 Use of URI and IRI
	    1.4 Notational Conventions
	 2. WSDL 2.0 Basics

	Best Regards,



		From: Jonathan Marsh [] 
		Sent: Tuesday, Sep 20, 2005 7:50 AM
		To: Liu, Kevin; Hugo Haas
		Subject: RE: What are the exemptions for use of IRI?

		IIRC, the WG was not prepared to do a global search and
replace of URI for IRI in the primer, as URIs are a familiar concept and
in almost all cases in the Primer the term is good enough.  Having one
statement pointing out that our use of URI instead of IRI is a
simplification should be sufficient.  We can confirm this on this week's
call if I've misrepresented the WG's decision.



		From: Liu, Kevin [] 
		Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 5:25 PM
		To: Hugo Haas; Jonathan Marsh
		Subject: What are the exemptions for use of IRI?


		Hi Hugo, Hi Jonathan,


		While working on proposing changes to the primer to
implement your suggestions in LC303 [1], I realize that we may also need
to do a global search in the Primer to replace the term URI with IRI to
be consistent with the core spec, in addition to adding a brief
introduction to IRI as you suggested.


		However, I  notice that the resolution of LC74a [2] ,
which caused the URI to IRI changes in Part 1 and 2,  contains a few
exemptions. The resolution of LC74a says <quote>Change URI to IRI
throughout except URI attr and prop on featiures and properties and SOAP
module, which becomes "ref"; exempt appendix E where we talk about
namespace URIs, and section 4.11.2 in adjunct spec.</quote>.  


		It's not clear to me what the last two exemptions really
are since section "Appendix E" and "section 4.11.2 in adjunct specs" are
completely changed/removed in the current version of the spec. In

			*	If I recall it right, the former Part 1
appendix E is now part of the Primer section 5.6 [3] which talks about
namespace URIs.   Does the exemption for "Appendix E" in LC74a mean that
namespace URI should not be changed to IRI? if so, why? 
			*	I have no idea what the "adjunct section
4.11.2" was, do you know what  the exemption for "section 4.11.2" is? 



		Best Regards,




[] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
			Sent: Thursday, Sep 08, 2005 10:00 AM
			Subject: Minutes, 8 Sep 2005 WS Description WG



			--  Jonathan Marsh  --
<>   --
<>   --


Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2005 23:29:18 UTC