As I understand it, if I implement an Atom processor that doesn't support IRIs, It's not conformant, and will have problems with some valid feeds, when dereferencing IRIs.
So, if we require support, it's potentially setting a higher bar for implementations. It wouldn't be a big deal to require IRIs if support were available in most languages that people are likely to use Atom in; e.g., Perl, Python, C#, Java, ECMAScript, VB, Ruby, etc.; preferably in their standard libraries, but at least in a single download.
Martin, do you know when can we expect to see such things appear? I've seen a few suggestions for Java go by, but not much else.
Also, has anyone identified which uses of URIs in Atom are likely to pose problems when converted to IRIs? Some URIs in Atom are used as identifiers, and not dereferenced. In those cases, my (possibly na�ve) inclination would be that as long as they're compared character-by-character, making them IRIs wouldn't be an issue, and we could use IRIs for at least some things in Atom (e.g., id, but not link) no matter what the status of library implementations.
Cheers,
On Jan 28, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
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
-- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
