Re: Spec comments to process

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

/ Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com> was heard to say:
| At 13:30 2003 10 02 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
|
|>| - Section 6.3, forcing URIs to be encoded removes the benefits of utf-8.
|>|
|>|  1. they must be escaped completely to the appropriate ascii form in the doc
|>|     either you do the comparison using whatever form is given and you'd expect
|>|     the caller to do the escaping
|>|  2. there is no normative required escaping, make sure your catalog documents
|>|     are using URIs escaped in the same way as the caller
|>|  3. use the full breadth of utf-8 and escape only the URI reserved symbols.
|>|     do the same thing from the caller.
|>|
|>|   note: we don't say anything about the application calling the resolver.
|>|   either the resolver normalizes all of them, or both the catalog editor and
|>|   the app layer must do normalization as specified in 6.3.
|>
|>I don't know what to do about this one.
|
| I'm not quite able to get my head around this.
|
| What's the issue, the pros and cons, and the right answer?

I've considered this again and looked at my notes. I'm going to
double-check with the commenter, but I think the spec is fine and
there was a misunderstanding.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

- -- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | It's all fun and games until someone loses an
XML Standards Architect | eye. Then it's just fun with a pirate.
Web Tech. and Standards |
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQE/fGrjOyltUcwYWjsRAoUKAJsGpYTp6wlp7KP/sOiCe5gfSEzMRwCeIDTV
aysY8xTa/Z+75vBbQFUWzBI=
=nWVw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----