[iri] #111: should scheme definitions explicitly define equivalence

[iri issue tracker]

#111: should scheme definitions explicitly define equivalence

from iri-comparison "todo" list:

Should 4395bis reference iri-comparison and recommend scheme definitions
describe equivalence specifically?
--
------------------------+-----------------
Reporter: masinter@… | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: 4395bis | Version:
Severity: - | Keywords:
------------------------+-----------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/111>
iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Post by iri issue tracker
#111: should scheme definitions explicitly define equivalence
Should 4395bis reference iri-comparison and recommend scheme definitions
describe equivalence specifically?

I never saw discussion of this issue. Where do we stand on this one?

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/111

Peter