Discussion:
I-D Action: draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-11.txt
i***@ietf.org
2012-03-12 06:58:48 UTC
Permalink
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internationalized Resource Identifiers Working Group of the IETF.

Title : Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)
Author(s) : Martin Duerst
Michel Suignard
Larry Masinter
Filename : draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-11.txt
Pages : 40
Date : 2012-03-11

This document defines the Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI)
protocol element, as an extension of the Uniform Resource Identifier
(URI). An IRI is a sequence of characters from the Universal
Character Set (Unicode/ISO 10646). Grammar and processing rules are
given for IRIs and related syntactic forms.

Defining IRI as a new protocol element (rather than updating or
extending the definition of URI) allows independent orderly
transitions: protocols and languages that use URIs must explicitly
choose to allow IRIs.

Guidelines are provided for the use and deployment of IRIs and
related protocol elements when revising protocols, formats, and
software components that currently deal only with URIs.

This document is part of a set of documents intended to replace RFC
3987.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-11.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-11.txt
Martin J. Dürst
2012-03-12 07:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Dear IRI WG,

I have just submitted a new Internet Draft of our main document,
3987bis. The main changes are editorial/grammatical fixes and updates to
the references. I strongly suggest your review this version, not -10,
because it has less grammatical errors.

In case you are interested in the small details, please check the
repository at
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/log/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis, in
particular the updates for revisions @102-@107. An overall diff can be
found at http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-11.txt.

Regards, Martin.
Post by i***@ietf.org
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internationalized Resource Identifiers Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)
Author(s) : Martin Duerst
Michel Suignard
Larry Masinter
Filename : draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-11.txt
Pages : 40
Date : 2012-03-11
This document defines the Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI)
protocol element, as an extension of the Uniform Resource Identifier
(URI). An IRI is a sequence of characters from the Universal
Character Set (Unicode/ISO 10646). Grammar and processing rules are
given for IRIs and related syntactic forms.
Defining IRI as a new protocol element (rather than updating or
extending the definition of URI) allows independent orderly
transitions: protocols and languages that use URIs must explicitly
choose to allow IRIs.
Guidelines are provided for the use and deployment of IRIs and
related protocol elements when revising protocols, formats, and
software components that currently deal only with URIs.
This document is part of a set of documents intended to replace RFC
3987.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-11.txt
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-11.txt
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
Julian Reschke
2012-03-12 07:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin J. Dürst
Dear IRI WG,
I have just submitted a new Internet Draft of our main document,
3987bis. The main changes are editorial/grammatical fixes and updates to
the references. I strongly suggest your review this version, not -10,
because it has less grammatical errors.
In case you are interested in the small details, please check the
repository at
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/log/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis, in
found at http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-11.txt.
Regards, Martin.
...
ASCII: not checked
ISO10646: not checked
RFC2119: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0014) ok
RFC3491: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC5891
RFC3629: [STANDARD] (-> STD0063) ok
RFC3986: [STANDARD] (-> STD0066) ok
RFC5890: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC5891: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC5892: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC5234: [STANDARD] (-> STD0068) ok
UNIV6: not checked
UTR15: not checked
draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines-02: [2012-03-09 ID-Exists] ok
Candidate Recommendation: document unknown
Duerst97: not checked
draft-ietf-iri-comparison-01: [2012-03-02 IESG] ok
Gettys: not checked
Recommendation: document unknown
RFC2130: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
RFC2141: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC2192: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC5092
RFC2277: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0018) ok
RFC2384: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC2396: [DRAFT STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC3986
RFC2397: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC2616: [DRAFT STANDARD] ok
RFC2640: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC3987: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-03: Alternate version available: 04
RFC5122: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC6055: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
RFC6068: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
UNIXML: not checked
UTR36: not checked
REC-xlink-20010627: [REC] ok
REC-xml-20081116: document unknown
REC-xmlschema-2-20041028: [REC] ok
REC-xptr-framework-20030325: [REC] ok
Note the warning for XML; the proper id is REC-xml-20081126.

Best regards, Julian
Martin J. Dürst
2012-03-13 07:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Hello Julian,
Is that your private tool, or something available online?
Post by Julian Reschke
Post by Martin J. Dürst
ASCII: not checked
ISO10646: not checked
RFC2119: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0014) ok
RFC3491: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC5891
This is cited in a context where RFC5891 woudldn't be appropriate.
Post by Julian Reschke
Post by Martin J. Dürst
RFC3629: [STANDARD] (-> STD0063) ok
RFC3986: [STANDARD] (-> STD0066) ok
RFC5890: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC5891: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC5892: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC5234: [STANDARD] (-> STD0068) ok
UNIV6: not checked
UTR15: not checked
draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines-02: [2012-03-09 ID-Exists] ok
Candidate Recommendation: document unknown
We seem to be using both "Recommendation/Note/..." and more explicit
labels (e.g. REC-xmlschema-2-20041028) in the value attribute for
<seriesInfo name="World Wide Web Consortium". Which one is right?
Post by Julian Reschke
Post by Martin J. Dürst
Duerst97: not checked
That's currently in limbo, I have to make sure it's accessible again. I
have opened http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/120 for this.
Post by Julian Reschke
Post by Martin J. Dürst
draft-ietf-iri-comparison-01: [2012-03-02 IESG] ok
Gettys: not checked
Recommendation: document unknown
RFC2130: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
RFC2141: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC2192: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC5092
RFC2277: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0018) ok
RFC2384: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC2396: [DRAFT STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC3986
RFC2397: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC2616: [DRAFT STANDARD] ok
RFC2640: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC3987: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-03: Alternate version available: 04
Fixed in subversion with revision 108
(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/browser/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis?rev=108)
Post by Julian Reschke
Post by Martin J. Dürst
RFC5122: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC6055: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
RFC6068: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
UNIXML: not checked
UTR36: not checked
REC-xlink-20010627: [REC] ok
REC-xml-20081116: document unknown
REC-xmlschema-2-20041028: [REC] ok
REC-xptr-framework-20030325: [REC] ok
Note the warning for XML; the proper id is REC-xml-20081126.
Fixed in subversion with revision 108 (see above). Actually, that string
was correct before revision 102, but it was listed as the Forth Edition
with a date in 2006. When I fixed that, thought I had to fix the id,
too, and made a typo.

Regards, Martin.
Julian Reschke
2012-03-13 08:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin J. Dürst
Hello Julian,
Is that your private tool, or something available online?
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#checking-references>
Post by Martin J. Dürst
Post by Julian Reschke
Post by Martin J. Dürst
ASCII: not checked
ISO10646: not checked
RFC2119: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0014) ok
RFC3491: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC5891
This is cited in a context where RFC5891 woudldn't be appropriate.
Post by Julian Reschke
Post by Martin J. Dürst
RFC3629: [STANDARD] (-> STD0063) ok
RFC3986: [STANDARD] (-> STD0066) ok
RFC5890: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC5891: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC5892: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC5234: [STANDARD] (-> STD0068) ok
UNIV6: not checked
UTR15: not checked
draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines-02: [2012-03-09 ID-Exists] ok
Candidate Recommendation: document unknown
We seem to be using both "Recommendation/Note/..." and more explicit
labels (e.g. REC-xmlschema-2-20041028) in the value attribute for
<seriesInfo name="World Wide Web Consortium". Which one is right?
I recommend the format I use in

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/w3c-references.html>
Post by Martin J. Dürst
Post by Julian Reschke
Post by Martin J. Dürst
Duerst97: not checked
That's currently in limbo, I have to make sure it's accessible again. I
have opened http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/120 for this.
Post by Julian Reschke
Post by Martin J. Dürst
draft-ietf-iri-comparison-01: [2012-03-02 IESG] ok
Gettys: not checked
Recommendation: document unknown
RFC2130: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
RFC2141: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC2192: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC5092
RFC2277: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0018) ok
RFC2384: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC2396: [DRAFT STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC3986
RFC2397: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC2616: [DRAFT STANDARD] ok
RFC2640: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC3987: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-03: Alternate version available: 04
Fixed in subversion with revision 108
(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/browser/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis?rev=108)
Post by Julian Reschke
Post by Martin J. Dürst
RFC5122: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
RFC6055: [INFORMATIONAL] ok
RFC6068: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok
UNIXML: not checked
UTR36: not checked
REC-xlink-20010627: [REC] ok
REC-xml-20081116: document unknown
REC-xmlschema-2-20041028: [REC] ok
REC-xptr-framework-20030325: [REC] ok
Note the warning for XML; the proper id is REC-xml-20081126.
Fixed in subversion with revision 108 (see above). Actually, that string
was correct before revision 102, but it was listed as the Forth Edition
with a date in 2006. When I fixed that, thought I had to fix the id,
too, and made a typo.
Yes, that's how things happen :-)
Martin J. Dürst
2012-03-14 08:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Hello Julian,
Post by Julian Reschke
Post by Martin J. Dürst
Hello Julian,
Is that your private tool, or something available online?
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#checking-references>
Thanks!
Post by Julian Reschke
I recommend the format I use in
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/w3c-references.html>
I switched to that, with some tweaks (because these references are
informal and shouldn't be too version-dependent). I have committed that
with revision @110.

I also changed from XLink 1.0 to XLink 1.1. The later is a benign
update, not like the mostly failed XML 1.1.


Regards, Martin.

Loading...