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

Addison Phillips writes:

>> Also, I'm not sure that "schemes" is a very clear word choice here. 
>> Perhaps it would be better to say something like:

>> "NOTE: the use of the xs:anyURI type anticipates 
>> the adoption of IRIs to replace URIs for the 
>> naming of resources"

You may be right, though I think one can make the case that unless scheme 
names themselves use the new characters, the formulation we've proposed is 
both correct and adequate.  Once you have chosen a scheme name, it is 
indeed the scheme that determines (within the constraints of the URI RFC 
or IRI draft) what the rules for the rest of the name string are.  That 
said, I would have no objection to the following revision:

"NOTE: the use of the xs:anyURI type anticipates the possibility that in 
future protocols will be developed that use IRI rather than URI naming for 
resources." 

Note that the IRI draft [1] says:

"The protocol or format element where IRIs are used should be explicitly 
designated to be able to carry IRIs.  That is, the intent is not to 
introduce IRIs into contexts that are not defined to accept them. "

I think it's premature to publish a recommendation suggesting, as you 
propose,  that IRI's would "replace URIs for the naming of resources". 
Even if IRI's are tremendously successful IRIs and URI's will coexist for 
a long time, and the protocols such as HTTP 1.1 that are URI-only will 
remain widely deployed for a long time.  The two will coexist, as ASCII 
and Unicode coexist in the computing world today.  Thus, I don't thing we 
need to get into the controversial claim that IRI's will "replace" URIs; 
for Representation headers it's enough to say that we are set to support 
IRIs when the protocols that we're caching choose to use them.

Just my personal opinion.

Noah

[1] ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-10.txt


--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@webmethods.com>
Sent by: xmlp-comments-request@w3.org
10/15/2004 10:18 AM
Please respond to aphillips

 
        To:     "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, 
"I18n WSTF" <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>, <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
        cc:     "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        RE: Closing Issue 502 ( was RE: Issue 502 is closed )



Hello Martin,

The following note is personal, rather than from the I18N WG.

Tiny quibble. I think there is a typo in your change to the document. You 
say:

> 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."
> 

I believe that the word "the" is missing in the phrase "that in THE future 
schemes"

Also, I'm not sure that "schemes" is a very clear word choice here. 
Perhaps it would be better to say something like:

"NOTE: the use of the xs:anyURI type anticipates the adoption of IRIs to 
replace URIs for the naming of resources"

Best Regards,

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
webMethods | Delivering Global Business Visibility
http://www.webMethods.com
Chair, W3C Internationalization (I18N) Working Group
Chair, W3C-I18N-WG, Web Services Task Force
http://www.w3.org/International

Internationalization is an architecture. 
It is not a feature.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-ws-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-i18n-ws-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Martin Gudgin
> Sent: 2004年10月15日 4:40
> To: Martin Duerst; I18n WSTF; xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Cc: Yves Lafon
> Subject: Closing Issue 502 ( was RE: Issue 502 is closed )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmlp-comments-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:xmlp-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Duerst
> > Sent: 07 October 2004 23:58
> > To: Yves Lafon; I18n WSTF
> > Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Issue 502 is closed
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> 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 Friday, 15 October 2004 15:04:34 UTC