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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 01 December 2011 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 B45A311E828D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:07:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 cRpNPKt6iyn0 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:07:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D03411E8115 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:07:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from normz.cisco.com (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 664EE421BB; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:14:56 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4ED7C27A.2030702@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:07:54 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Maile Ohye <maileko@gmail.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <4E0FF142.1010201@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Joachim Kupke <joachim@kupke.za.net>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
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 18:07:57 -0000

I'm creating the IESG ballot text right now and I have one question...

On 7/2/11 10:34 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

>> 9. OPEN. M. Yevstifeyev:
>> > 8.  Internationalisation Considerations
>> In designating a canonical URI, please see [RFC3986] for information
>> on URI encoding.
>>   
>> IRIs serve for this purpose.  I recommend either to rename the section
>> to Encoding considerations or skip it at all ( I personally like 2nd
>> variant).
>> --response by J. Reschke "I believe we'll need this section, and the
>> contents is fine; after all, this is what you have to think of with
>> respect to I18N, no?"
>> --response by M. Yevstifeyev: "RFC 5988 allows target and context URIs
>> to be IRIs.  Current draft has no provisions regarding this.  However,
>> the actual and current text matches encoding considerations better."
>> --response by J. Reschke: "Actually, there's nothing special about the
>> 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?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/