Re: [webfinger] Webfinger and URI vs IRI

> So, if IRIs are truly only for presentation, then the latter example above
> should be what WF servers return. The query target is always a
> percent-encoded URI, so it’s a non-issue.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Barry
On Jul 22, 2013 5:27 PM, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:

> Barry,****
>
> ** **
>
> The reason I raise this is that RFC 5988 refers to the target IRI (the
> “href” in WebFinger link relation) and context IRI (the “subject” and
> “aliases” in WebFinger).  Only ASCII is used in some protocols, so the IRIs
> must be formatted as URIs.****
>
> ** **
>
> However, JRD is JSON and, therefore, Unicode.  Thus, we could easily
> accommodate links like this:****
>
> ** **
>
>   {****
>
>     "rel" : "test2",****
>
>     "href" : "http://example.org/私の 文書.txt"****
>
> }****
>
> ** **
>
> As opposed this form:****
>
> ** **
>
>   {****
>
>     "rel" : "test2",****
>
>     "href" : "
> http://example.org/%E7%A7%81%E3%81%AE%20%E6%96%87%E6%9B%B8.txt"****
>
> }****
>
> ** **
>
> I have no strong preference, but the text did have IRI mentioned in one
> place in the JRD spec section, but it was not consistent through the
> document.  Everywhere else, we specified URI.****
>
> ** **
>
> So, if IRIs are truly only for presentation, then the latter example above
> should be what WF servers return.  The query target is always a
> percent-encoded URI, so it’s a non-issue.****
>
> ** **
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com [mailto:
> barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Barry Leiba
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2013 4:30 PM
> *To:* Paul E. Jones
> *Cc:* Martin J. Dürst; webfinger@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] Webfinger and URI vs IRI****
>
> ** **
>
> I believe WF should only use URIs.  I believe that IRIs are a presentation
> layer thing.****
>
> Barry****
>
> On Jul 22, 2013 1:50 AM, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:***
> *
>
> Folks,
>
> The term URI is used almost exclusively in the WebFinger spec, with IRI
> appearing only twice (outside of the reference).  This is because URI is
> used in RFC 6415 almost exclusively.  However, RFC 5988 uses the term IRI
> in
> most of the text.  That said, RFC 5988 also says things like the "target
> IRI
> as a URI-Reference" ...
>
> I feel like we have a terminology problem and it's not quite clear to me
> how
> to fix it.  Should we change every instance of URI to IRI?  Should URI be
> used in most places, with IRI discussed specifically somewhere?  Or is
> there
> even a need to mention IRI given that IRIs can be converted to URIs?
>
> I would really like to get this right, but it definitely does not look
> right
> now with only one normative use of IRI in section 4.4.4.  Who can help me
> with this?
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger****
>