- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:29:59 +0900
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, I18n WSTF <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>
- Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
Hello Yves, others, This is at this moment just a personal comment. 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. So that means that you explicitly exclude IRIs. This is of course not what we asked for. Any good reason for this? Without any justification, I cannot immagine how we could agree to such a resolution. >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. This looks like nice compromizy language. But how do you guarantee interoperability? >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. This seems to be orthogonal to the points above. Any reason for why you have mentioned it here? 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 Tuesday, 28 September 2004 03:14:03 UTC