Martin Duerst wrote:
The IRI spec is now published as RFC 3987 (Proposed Standard, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt).
The update of the URI spec, known as RFC2396bis, is now published as STD 66, RFC 3986.
Even less reason for not adopting them. Editors, please update your references. I'll update PaceIRI in a day or two.
IRIs are a step forward and important to include in the spec, but they also worry me. In RFC3987, I read the following:
"The approach of defining a new protocol element was chosen instead of extending or changing the definition of URIs. This was done in order to allow a clear distinction and to avoid incompatibilities with existing software."
Do you expect Atom implementors will be using incompatible existing software? I think this question should face roughly the same scrutiny that PUT/DELETE did.
I'm also worried that the term "IRI" will cause confusion. After all, the catch phrase is not "Cool IRIs Don't Change." What can we do minimize confusion?
Robert Sayre
