- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:58:23 +0900
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, I18n WSTF <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>
- Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
Hello Yves, others, This is the official response of the I18N WG (WS Task Force) to your response on your issue number 502. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x502 At 20:22 04/09/24 +0200, Yves Lafon wrote: >On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, A. Vine wrote: > >[issue 502 [1] covers the points 5 and 6 of your email [2]. ] > >The XMLP WG decided to close issue 502 with the following resolution: > >point 5: >The following text was added to section 4.2.2: ><<< >The value of the resource attribute information SHOULD be a URI Reference >as defined in RFC 2396 including ammendments to that definition found in >RFC 2732. This would rule out IRIs. But we explicitly asked for allowing IRIs. It is unclear to us why this was rejected, and we would have to object to such a decision. >point 6: >The following text was added in section 4.1: ><<< >URIs that are character for character identical MUST be considered equal >when using a representation header to resolve a web reference; URIs that >are considered equal according to the URI scheme of the URI SHOULD be >considered equal. We are not sure that this way of wording things will lead to the necessary interoperability and predictability. >Please note that the use of the Representation header does NOT mandate >that its content is the authoritative representation of the resource. Nor >what an application must do with it. We are not sure how this comment is relevant for the discussion above. Can you explain. Regards, Martin. >Please let the Working Group know if that resolution is acceptable or not >as soon as possible. >Regards, > >[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x502 >[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Sep/0000.html > >-- >Yves Lafon - W3C >"Baroula que barouleras, au ti騏 toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2004 22:59:08 UTC