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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

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/