RE: Closing Issue 502 ( was RE: Issue 502 is closed )

Speaking for myself; my understanding from the issue raised was that
IRIs contain actual Unicode octets outside the ASCII range, hence the
examples you provided. xs:anyURI allows this. The type of the attribute
in question is xs:anyURI. The HTTP spec clearly disallows this as only
ASCII characters are allowed in the URI portion, hence the encoding as
UTF-8 using %HH

If you really believe that IRI == Unicode octets == ASCII encoded
unicode octets then I really don't understand your original issue
because as far as I can tell ALL three versions of the text we have
provided to you would allow one or more of the two encodings. Out
original text in the CR spec allowed both. The first amended version
provided to you allowed ASCII encoded unicode octets, the latest version
allows both.

So I don't understand your concern. You wanted the spec to allow IRIs.
As far as I can tell, given your definiton below, it always has.

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org] 
> Sent: 18 October 2004 21:59
> To: Martin Gudgin; aphillips@webmethods.com; I18n WSTF; 
> xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Cc: Yves Lafon
> Subject: RE: Closing Issue 502 ( was RE: Issue 502 is closed )
> 
> At 23:51 04/10/15, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>  >I think the sentence makes sense as is, but I've added the 
> 'the' anyway. We
>  >used 'schemes' because our understanding is that it's the 
> scheme which
>  >defines what characters are legal in an identifier per that scheme.
> 
> I was confused quite a bit by this because I assumed that 'scheme'
> was referring to the XML Schema that would restrict the use of anyURI
> to ASCII only for the time being.
> 
> Now that I have again read through the thread, my understanding is
> that by "scheme", you mean URI scheme. If that's the case, then
> the text (independent of the various tweaks discussed) is based on
> some very wrong assumptions.
> 
> As discussed quite explicitly and extensively in issue iri-scheme-38
> (http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/Overview.html#iri-sc
heme-38),
> and reflected in the spec itself in many ways (not the least being
> various examples), there is no a priori distinction between URI
> schemes and IRI schemes. There are only URI schemes, but every
> URI scheme can, potentially at least, be used with IRIs.
> 
> The condition for use with IRIs is, roughly, that the scheme requires
> or allows non-ASCII characters to be encoded in UTF-8 and %HH in the
> URI scheme or actual URIs or parts thereoff.
> 
> As such, in particular the HTTP scheme definitely qualifies for use
> with IRIs, because it allows non-ASCII characters to be encoded in
> UTF-8 and %HH. Because it only allows, rather than requires, this,
> individual HTTP URIs, or parts theroff, may work more or less well
> with IRIs. Indeed, if you put a HTTP URI containing a %HH sequence
> based on UTF-8 in its path into the location field of a modern
> browser (e.g. Opera or Safari), it will automatically convert
> this to actual (Unicode) characters. On the other hand, if you
> input an http: IRI there, these browsers (and some others) will
> automatically convert using UTF-8 and %HH as part of their
> HTTP resolution.
> 
> So the fundamental assumption behind the text is wrong; IRIs
> can be used already with many existing URI schemes.
> 
> 
> Regards,     Martin.
> 
> 
>  >> > Dear Martin and I18N,
>  >> >
>  >> > Regarding issue 502[1], the XMLP Working Group has amended
>  >> section 4.2.2
>  >> > if the Resource Representation SOAP Header Block
>  >> specification to read:
>  >> >
>  >> > "The type of the resource attribute information item is
>  >> xs:anyURI. The
>  >> > value of the resource attribute information item is a URI that
>  >> > identifies the Web resource whose representation is 
> carried in the
>  >> > rep:Representation element information item parent of 
> the resource
>  >> > attribute information item. NOTE: the use of the xs:anyURI type
>  >> > anticipates the possibility that in future schemes will 
> be developed
>  >> > that use IRI rather than URI naming for resources."
>  >> >
>  >> > We trust this addresses your concern about allowing IRIs in
>  >> the resource
>  >> > attribute.
>  >> >
>  >> > Regards
>  >> >
>  >> > Martin Gudgin
>  >> > For the XMLP WG
>  >> >
>  >> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x502
>  >>
>  >> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 05:44:20 UTC