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

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

On 12/1/11 12:06 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.

I'll add that as an RFC Editor note so we can move forward.

Thanks!

Peter

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