[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri-editors] RE: Closure on I18N approach (was RE: [xri-edit ors] Status on draft spec)
I think the underlying issue we've all had with specifying XRI syntax in terms of unicode characters (rather than US-ASCII characters) is that there is a lot of infrastructure already deployed (based on a number of specificaitons like RFC 2396 and the HTTP specification for example) that deal only with 8-bit US-ASCII characters. The point of IRI was to be able to define syntaxes for identifiers using unicode characters and then have those unicode strings automatically be converted (through IRI-defined transformations) into the URI-legal (a subset of US-ASCII) characters that comprise URIs. When talking about resolution, I *really* need to be able to assume that all characters being resolved are URI-legal (or escapable into URI-legal characters) because underlying network protocols assume US-ascii character sets. And even when talking about *presenting* (as opposed to resolving) XRIs) US-ASCII or URI-legal is the only set of characters that are legal in many environments. The Question: Are you merely suggesting that we define XRIs across the scope of unicode characters, and then define a transform to URI-legal characters for the purpose of use of the XRI in places where URIs are expected? That sounds like it may be a reasonable approach - it may not even affect resolution (if we simply require that the transformation to URI-legal characters occurs before resolution). Thanks for your patience in explaining this to us.. -Gabe > -----Original Message----- > From: Sakimura, Nat [mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp] > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 12:20 AM > To: Wachob, Gabe; Drummond Reed; Dave McAlpin; > xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri-editors] RE: Closure on I18N approach (was RE: > [xri-edit ors] Status on draft spec) > > > IMHO XRI should be internationalized from the beginning. > Introducing XRI > and IXRI will create unnecessary confusion and uncleanness in the > implementation as well as no adaptation in the reality. We > should design > the system UTF-8 clean, and %escaping of non-ascii characters should > happen only as the last resort. > > Is there any problem in making the following range as unreserved as > well? > > ucschar = %xA0-D7FF / %xF900-FDCF / %xFDF0-FFEF / > / %x10000-1FFFD / %x20000-2FFFD / %x30000-3FFFD > / %x40000-4FFFD / %x50000-5FFFD / %x60000-6FFFD > / %x70000-7FFFD / %x80000-8FFFD / %x90000-9FFFD > / %xA0000-AFFFD / %xB0000-BFFFD / %xC0000-CFFFD > / %xD0000-DFFFD / %xE1000-EFFFD > > Doing this will impact the structure of the document a little that > perhaps we have to make a section in I18N chapter about the UTF-8 to > ASCII translation. > > Nat > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:27 AM > To: Sakimura, Nat; Drummond Reed; Wachob, Gabe; Dave McAlpin; > xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri-editors] RE: Closure on I18N approach (was RE: > [xri-edit ors] Status on draft spec) > > Perhaps the approach should be that the stuff currently there is the > "correctness rules" after a unicode -> US-Ascii > transformation has been > performed. Any string that ends up as a legal XRI (in the 2396 > definition we have now) after this transformation is thus a legal IXRI > (internationalized XRI). > > Does that approach make sense? > > Thanks for guiding us on this Nat - I think we'd be hopelessly lost if > we didn't have you on board here. > > -Gabe > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sakimura, Nat [mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp] > > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 6:21 PM > > To: Drummond Reed; Wachob, Gabe; Dave McAlpin; > > xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: [xri-editors] RE: Closure on I18N approach (was RE: > > [xri-editors] Status on draft spec) > > > > > > I am basically with it. My point was just that in the last > edition, it > > was stated that character set and thus reserved and > > unreserved character > > set will basically come from RFC2396. I think it should > come from IRI > > instead (for obvious reason). > > > > I am going to work on the section today. > > > > Nat > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 2:46 AM > > To: Wachob, Gabe; Sakimura, Nat; Dave McAlpin; > > xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: Closure on I18N approach (was RE: [xri-editors] > > Status on draft > > spec) > > > > Nat, > > > > First, +1 on Gabe's reply (glad I read it before I typed my own). > > > > Second, glad you are back from your trip. From a process standpoint, > > with Gabe's submission of the resolution portion of the spec, which > > DaveM is incorporating into the main body of the doc today, > > the Encoding > > and I18N sections remain the last to be filled in. > > > > Which means closing on our overall approach to this issue > is the next > > major decision at hand. > > > > Third, to reinforce one point that DaveM and I have been > dealing with > > extensively with regard to RFC 2396bis: any IETF spec that is at > > Internet Draft status can't be referenced normatively by > the XRI spec. > > That's the case with 2396bis, and it's also the case with > > IRI. So if we > > want to use the IRI approach, we'd have to, as Gabe says, > incorporate > > its substantive content directly. > > > > What do you suggest is the best approach? > > > > =Drummond > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] > > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:58 AM > > To: 'Sakimura, Nat'; Dave McAlpin; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Status on draft spec > > > > Nat > > I'm not sure I see the distinction you are making. > > > > I think we define the XRI syntax in terms of 2396 but then > > define a set of IRI-like transformation rules from scripts > > and character > > sets other than US-ASCII (actually the more limited set of URI-legal > > characters). In other words, do exactly what the IRI draft proposes. > > Unfortunately, the IRI draft is not a real specification, > so we cannot > > cite it normatively, but I would strongly favor adopting > its approach > > (even that means lifting sections word for word). > > > > For those of us in US-ASCII land, this has little or > > no effect. > > For those who have more interesting character sets, this > > means that yes, > > user interfaces will have to convert XRI from the > URI-escaped form to > > the localized form for the particular user. But in either > > case the XRIs > > will be human readable, so long as the client software performs i18n > > unescaping and translation into local character sets. > > > > Is this #2? > > > > > > -Gabe > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sakimura, Nat [mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp] > > > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:59 AM > > > To: Dave McAlpin; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Status on draft spec > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the delay. I am finally back from two weeks > > > consecutive trips. > > > > > > > > > Looking at the discussion, it looks like we base most syntax > > > on RFC2396. > > > This would assume/implies the following: > > > > > > 1) Most international XRI will not be human readable. > > > Or > > > 2) We are talking about the URI escape form of XRI for > machine level > > > handling, which a user will not see because the XRI client > > > software will > > > take care of the conversion. > > > > > > Which is true? > > > > > > My inclination is towards 2) by the way. 1) will not fulfill > > > our promise > > > of human readability. This will in turn have impact on the > > > section 2.1. > > > Instead of RFC 2396, we probably need to be basing it on IRI. > > > > > > Nat Sakimura > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 4:04 AM > > > To: xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: [xri-editors] Status on draft spec > > > > > > The following sections of the draft spec are currently waiting for > > > input. > > > > > > Section 2.3 Character Encoding and Internationalization > > (Gabe and Nat) > > > Section 2.5.3 Internationalized XRI Equivalence (Gabe and Nat) > > > Section 3 Resolution (Gabe, Mike and Peter) > > > > > > I'm doing a pass through the doc and making editorial changes > > > right now. > > > I'll post a new version (04) this afternoon so people can > > see how it's > > > shaping up and to see how missing sections will fit into > > the doc as a > > > whole. > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > xri-editors-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > xri-editors-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > xri-editors-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > xri-editors-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: xri-editors-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: > xri-editors-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: xri-editors-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: > xri-editors-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: xri-editors-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: xri-editors-help@lists.oasis-open.org >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]