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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri message

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

Subject: [Fwd: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iri-bis-00.txt]

Couldn't post this from my personal account, where I'm subscribed to the 
IRI mailing list.
Please see attached.

--- Begin Message ---

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: William Tan <dready@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 12, 2007 5:14 PM
Subject: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iri-bis-00.txt
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org

Should we be referencing "RFC3987 or later" in syntax 2.0?
I have no idea when it will go into the standards track.

BTW here's the link to the original thread: http://www.nabble.com/Fwd:-I-D-Action:draft-duerst-iri-bis-00.txt-t4015868.html
Here's the latest version of the "bis" draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-bis-01.txt
There's a changelog in there. Most edits are minor and do not affect us (e.g. the stuff about legacy extended iri's, which I presume is Microsoft's and other browser's, but mainly Microsoft's, legacy.)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Martin Duerst < duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Jul 3, 2007 4:11 AM
Subject: RE: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iri-bis-00.txt
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, public-iri@w3.org

Hello Richard,

At 17:08 07/07/03, Richard Ishida wrote:
>Hi Martin,
>When the move to draft standard occurs, I'm assuming we'll end up with
>another RFC number than 3987 for the IRI spec,


>and will have to go around
>checking that specs are updated, even if they already say 'RFC 3987 or its
>successor', because it won't be clear what that successor is unless you
>happen to know.

Yes. At the moment, the main problem isn't that the spec reference
RFC 3987, and I don't know a spec that says "or its successor".
The main problem currently is the specs that don't even reference
RFC 3987. But sooner or later, the problem above also of course
is going to happen, and it's indeed good to think about it.

>If my assumptions are correct, is there an unchanging
>BCP-like number that applies here?

No, not for standards track. Once something is an IETF Standard,
there is a separate Standard number, but at that stage, the
theory at least is that no revisions are needed anymore.
An example would be RFC 3986, STD 66.

So there is no easy way to solve the problem as in the case
of language tags. I'm nevertheless confident that the Web won't
collapse, because the same problem applies to URIs or to
HTTP, as well as to other technologies, and somehow, things
have worked out.

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp


http://xri.net/=wil --- End Message ---

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