RE: Closure on I18N approach (was RE: [xri-editors] Status on draft spec)

["Sakimura, Nat" <n-sakimura@nri.co.jp>]

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