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

Thanks. If 'schemes' makes sense in context, then that's fine. It was an observation based simply on the that sentence and nothing more.

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: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 2004年10月15日 7:52
> To: aphillips@webmethods.com; Martin Duerst; I18n WSTF;
> xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Cc: Yves Lafon
> Subject: RE: Closing Issue 502 ( was RE: Issue 502 is closed )
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Gudge 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Addison Phillips [wM] [mailto:aphillips@webmethods.com] 
> > Sent: 15 October 2004 15:18
> > To: Martin Gudgin; Martin Duerst; I18n WSTF; xmlp-comments@w3.org
> > Cc: Yves Lafon
> > 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: 2004N1015 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 15:46:46 UTC