Re: [apps-discuss] [link-relations] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-00.txt

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 01 December 2011 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 187761F0CBE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:06:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.834
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.834 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.235, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S6CnF+8ZOwGI for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 33CDE1F0CB4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Dec 2011 19:06:22 -0000
Received: from p5DCC92A3.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.146.163] by mail.gmx.net (mp023) with SMTP; 01 Dec 2011 20:06:22 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/y4FpOZSDyiDQcKb2k3Z0Iqx8jwn12be/sa08Z7Z 2ttiurGMZ1Rv8+
Message-ID: <4ED7D02A.50305@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:06:18 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <4E083D3F.6030200@gmx.de> <4E0D3EA5.7010803@gmail.com> <4E0DCFEF.20206@gmx.de> <4E0DEA77.3050007@gmail.com> <4E0E0E76.2080007@gmail.com> <4E0E995A.7060800@gmail.com> <4E0F1058.3050201@gmail.com> <1309613470.2807.17.camel@mackerel> <4E0F1F2F.8020504@gmail.com> <CAGKau1GyaxpgZsZmUcqZp1iUG6wrvSG3LHM3Pq52AjXfZz900Q@mail.gmail.com> <4E0FF142.1010201@gmail.com> <4ED7C27A.2030702@stpeter.im> <4ED7CD0D.5080003@gmx.de> <4ED7CD9F.9020602@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4ED7CD9F.9020602@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Joachim Kupke <joachim@kupke.za.net>, Maile Ohye <maileko@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [link-relations] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-00.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:06:25 -0000

On 2011-12-01 19:55, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 12/1/11 11:53 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2011-12-01 19:07, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> I'm creating the IESG ballot text right now and I have one question...
>>>
>>> On 7/2/11 10:34 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> I18N for this link relation; so I believe the text should just state
>>>>> that there's nothing to say in addition to RFC 5988, Section 8."
>>>>> --response by M. Yevstifeyev: "Probably such approach is OK."
>>>>> --response by M. Ohye, “Julian, would you like us to restate the
>>>>> current text to explicitly mention there is nothing beyond RFC 5988,
>>>>> or leave as-is?”
>>>> So let's wait for Julian's response.
>>>
>>> As far as I can see, Julian never replied on the i18n topic. Did I miss
>>> his post to the list?
>>
>> No, I probably never replied.
>>
>> I don't think it matters. We can leave things as they are, or add
>> another statement pointing to RFC 5988's I18N section.
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>
> Yeah, I would suggest:
>
> OLD
>     In designating a canonical URI, please see [RFC3986] for information
>     on URI encoding.
>
> NEW
>     Internationalization considerations for link relations are provided
>     in Section 8 of [RFC5988].

Works for me.

Best regards, Julian