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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

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