Not to advocate one position or another, but RFC 3987 doesn't obsolete
RFC 3986; we have a choice.
On Jan 24, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
If there were no further discussion: It's hard to see how to avoid
adopting this now that IRIs are standards-track RFC. -Tim
--
Mark Nottingham
Hello Robert,
Thanks for your questions, and for studying IRIs so carefully.
At 09:15 05/01/29, Robert Sayre wrote:
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
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
Martin Duerst wrote:
...
Bjoern was making a vaild, but fine, point: Because we decided to
refer to RFC2396bis, rather than to RFC2396, we already have bought
into the fact that RFC2396bis allows percent-encoded domain names,
and thus essentially requires IDN support. (apart from the basic
fact
+1 on PaceIRI
I'm a little hesitant on this because I'm not familiar with the
issues, but it's something we'll probably all have to broach sometime
soon. Martin seems to know what he's talking about ;-)
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:54:51 +0100, Julian Reschke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Duerst
Tim Bray wrote:
If there were no further discussion: It's hard to see how to avoid
adopting this now that IRIs are standards-track RFC. -Tim
I saw some concerns (with which I agree) that requiring the presence of
an IDN library is problematic. As far as I can tell, it's likely to be
ignored by
At 17:16 05/01/25, Julian Reschke wrote:
Also; I sypmathize with supporting IRI, but that shouldn't mean it needs
to replace any usage of URIs
Every URI is an IRI by definition. So all URIs that are in use can be
used with Atom without any problems even if the spec says we use IRIs.
Replacement
Martin Duerst wrote:
At 17:16 05/01/25, Julian Reschke wrote:
Also; I sypmathize with supporting IRI, but that shouldn't mean it
needs to replace any usage of URIs
Every URI is an IRI by definition. So all URIs that are in use can be
used with Atom without any problems even if the spec says we
Julian Reschke wrote:
The big difference here is that XMLNS uses IRIs/URIs as identifiers and
only for that. However, what is an XSLT that transforms Atom content to
HTML supposed to do when it encounters a IRI which isn't a legal URI?
For instance, it can't put it into an HTML href attribute
* Julian Reschke wrote:
The big difference here is that XMLNS uses IRIs/URIs as identifiers and
only for that. However, what is an XSLT that transforms Atom content to
HTML supposed to do when it encounters a IRI which isn't a legal URI?
http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#section-HTML-Output-Method
Martin Duerst wrote:
At 17:16 05/01/25, Julian Reschke wrote:
Also; I sypmathize with supporting IRI, but that shouldn't mean it
needs to replace any usage of URIs
Every URI is an IRI by definition. So all URIs that are in use can be
used with Atom without any problems even if the spec says we
* Julian Reschke wrote:
The big difference here is that XMLNS uses IRIs/URIs as identifiers and
only for that. However, what is an XSLT that transforms Atom content to
HTML supposed to do when it encounters a IRI which isn't a legal URI?
http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#section-HTML-Output-Method
At 01:52 05/01/26, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 9:16 AM +0100 1/25/05, Julian Reschke wrote:
I saw some concerns (with which I agree) that requiring the presence of
an IDN library is problematic. As far as I can tell, it's likely to be
ignored by developers of clients that run on somwehat constrained
On 1/25/05 7:45 PM, Martin Duerst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:52 05/01/26, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 9:16 AM +0100 1/25/05, Julian Reschke wrote:
I saw some concerns (with which I agree) that requiring the presence of
an IDN library is problematic. As far as I can tell, it's likely to
At 09:17 05/01/25, Tim Bray wrote:
If there were no further discussion: It's hard to see how to avoid
adopting this now that IRIs are standards-track RFC. -Tim
Some good news:
The IRI spec is now published as RFC 3987 (Proposed Standard,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt).
The update of the
15 matches
Mail list logo
