OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-formula message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [office-formula] Summary 2010-09-07 - IRI vs URI

Oh, what I should have said, because of the mapping ambiguity, is that every
IRI has an encoding that is a URI.  Not every URI is an encoding of an IRI
that is not a URI and some URIs have %-encodings that do not satisfy the IRI
%-encoding requirements.  What we want to rule out is the last group as well
as deal with manifest:full-path and the Zip directory file name.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 21:55
To: 'Andreas J. Guelzow'
Cc: 'dwheeler@dwheeler.com'; 'office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [office-formula] Summary 2010-09-07 - IRI vs URI


Thanks for pointing out that language in [RFC3987].

Here's my extended analysis of what is involved with that.  

I believe the statement patently incorrect if read to mean that IRIs and
URIs are co-extensive and there is nothing that needs to be done.  The IRI
specification would be very short and not have to pay attention to mappings
and when and how they apply were it literally true.  They would also not
require a separate grammar for IRIs.

Whatever the case, I believe it is necessary to say exactly how we expect
IRIs to be mapped to URIs, what the admissable IRIs are in the case of
relative references to package files and subdocuments, and what the
corresponding manifest:full-path and Zip directory file names are.

[ ... ] 

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]