Hi Marcos, I will try to do it next week in Dusseldorf then. Even if an/your implementation handles it, I assume the details should be speced.
Thanks, Marcin Marcin Hanclik ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465 Mobile: +49-163-8290-646 E-Mail: [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcos Caceres Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:17 PM To: Marcin Hanclik Cc: Robin Berjon; public-webapps WG Subject: Re: Normalization, was: RE: [Widget URI] Internationalization, widget IRI? Marcin, Lets try this another way. Can you make me a widget that explicitly demos the problem? I will then run it against our implementation and see what happens. I will also add the widget to the test suite, to make sure we expose and potential misunderstandings in the spec wrt URIs. Kind regards, Marcos On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Marcos Caceres <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Marcin Hanclik > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Marcos, >> >>>>So it turns out that %-encoded really just means "replace this '%xx' >>>>with UTF-8 bytes". >> Yes. >> >>>>So we don't need to do anything. >> P&C shall state the actual algorithm and equivalence. >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-apis-20090423/ >> had this issue: >> "ISSUE: do we need to do some kind of URI normalization to check for >> equivalency?" >> >> According to RFC3987, 5.1: >> " Applications using IRIs as identity tokens with no relationship to a >> protocol MUST use the Simple String Comparison (see section 5.3.1). >> All other applications MUST select one of the comparison practices >> from the Comparison Ladder (see section 5.3 or, after IRI-to-URI >> conversion, select one of the comparison practices from the URI >> comparison ladder in [RFC3986], section 6.2)" >> >> @href may fall into Comparison Ladder case, id into namespaces. >> The question (still the same) is whether in case of @name of <feature> the >> IRIs are used as identity tokens (id, simple string) or anything else/new. >> > > They are namespaces. I actually raised this issue a long time ago too > because I had the same concerns as you. The WG decided that strings > that name things (@id, @name) are treated as namespaces. > >> Once the answer is that IRIs are to be treated as identity tokens (as you >> propose and I agree), then we still have the issue of expressing the >> non-ASCII IRIs in ASCII documents (border case). Then we would need a >> guideline / example that in XML the author shall use character entities to >> encode the IRI (I marked this solution awkward, but I could live with it). >> > > I think Addison already said this was not a problem: if you know the > encoding of the XML document, you know the encoding of the URI. URI > are always treated as UTF-8 internally. There is no problem here. > > > -- > Marcos Caceres > http://datadriven.com.au > -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au ________________________________________ Access Systems Germany GmbH Essener Strasse 5 | D-46047 Oberhausen HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda www.access-company.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
