Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/ietf/urn/urn-archives/urn-ietf.archive.9611/000173_owner-urn-ietf _Fri Nov 15 10:58:04 1996.msg

Internet Message Format | 1997-02-19 | 4KB

Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id KAA10549 for urn-ietf-out; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:58:04 -0500
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA10544 for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:58:01 -0500
Received: from acl.lanl.gov by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b)
        id AA28097  (mail destined for [e-mail]); Fri, 15 Nov 96 10:58:00 -0500
Received: from legiron.acl.lanl.gov (legiron.acl.lanl.gov [128.165.147.188]) by acl.lanl.gov (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA04144; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 08:57:37 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:05:51 -0700
To: Martin J Duerst <[e-mail]>
From: Ron Daniel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [URN] URI internationalization
Cc: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Ron Daniel <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]

Thus spoke Martin J Duerst (at least at 03:57 PM 11/15/96 +0100)

>The internationalization of URNs, URLs, and URIs in general has been
>raised as a problem or topic in many different places. Given the
>various recent discussions and the progress made in particular in
>this group, I think that time has come to address this issue in a
>more formal way, inside an existing ietf working group or by creating
>a specific working group for it.

I think I18N for URLs is a more difficult problem than it has been for
URNs. We have a large number of existing URLs in a variety of character
sets. Saying "thou shalt use 10646" will meet more resistance than it
has in this WG, due to backward compatability considerations. The first
question that has to be answered is "Is an I18N scheme for URLs that
breaks existing URLs acceptable or unacceptable?". If the answer is
"unacceptable" you have a tremendous technical problem. If the answer
is "acceptable" you have a MUCH bigger social problem.  Call me a
coward, but I want no part of the second battle. I want to get on to
URCs before *all* my hair turns grey.

While I18N for URLs is a legitimate issue, it is not an issue for the
URN-WG (IMHO). The URI list is still alive, that might be the proper
place to begin discussions. I suggest that you wait until the recent
agreements on UTF-8, %HH, ... for URNs have been codified in the
Syntax draft, but that is only a suggestion.

>The aim would be to produce a document that would include:
[specific points deleted for brevity]

What you have outlined appears reasonable, but may be best
handled as a series of documents. As you have outlined it,
I think you are talking about a 100 page informational RFC.
Splitting it not only makes it easier to read, it makes
it faster to produce since contentious parts don't delay
non-contentious parts.

>- What is the best framework/place/list to host this activity.

Your friendly area directors can advise you on this. I suggest
you come up with an outline of your solution and then ask them if
it needs a WG or if they want to do a special "last-call" to the
URI list and some selected experts. Peer-review of a concrete
proposal seems to work much better than design by committee.


Regards,
Ron Daniel Jr.                       email: [e-mail]
Advanced Computing Lab               voice: [phone]
MS B287                                fax: [phone]
Los Alamos National Laboratory        http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel/
Los Alamos, NM, USA  87545    obscure_term: "hyponym"