Subject: Re: PaceIdConstruct

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:00:23 +0900

Hello Mark,

Sorry to be late with my answer.

At 16:01 04/08/22 -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>Hi Martin,
>
>Just curious -- what's the status of IRI support in implementations?

It's implemented in quite a few browsers, but I guess you are
more asking about implementations in toolkits. I'm not aware of
any toolkit that does implement IRIs directly. But basic implementation
is really easy:
1) for using IRIs as identifiers: Just keep your data as characters
    (Unicode in one form or another)
2) For resolving an IRI:
    a) make sure that you convert your IRI to UTF-8 if it's not already
       in UTF-8. (zero or one function call)
    b) percent-escape non-ASCII bytes (one function call)
    c) for domain names, convert from IDN to punycode (usually one call,
       libraries available, somewhat big (couple 100K).

Both 1) and 2)a) come very naturally when working with XML.

Please feel free to ask more, or to ask for help for some specific
implementation.

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:29:31 +0200

>any toolkit that does implement IRIs directly. But basic implementation

I do not know of any conforming implementation in a non-experimental
browser, maybe you could point us to a proper test suite and a test
results documents so we can get a better idea of the current status
quo? I am also a bit confused by what you consider a "basic"
implementation, as far as I can tell, such an implementation would

>       libraries available, somewhat big (couple 100K).

be clearly non-conforming, no?

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:46:28 +0900

At 23:29 04/09/09 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

>browser,

Obviously there is not yet a conforming implementation, because
the IRI spec is not yet approved nor published as an RFC.
Similar to there being no conforming Atom (1.0) implementation
out there yet.

>maybe you could point us to a proper test suite and a test
>quo?

Moving something to Proposed Standard does not require a test suite.

>I am also a bit confused by what you consider a "basic"

In which respect would it be non-conforming?

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:05:24 +0100

Can we move PaceIDConstruct to "Accepted for Incorporation" now, since 
most of its wording has been added to the latest draft (not that 
consensus ever formed around it the way Paces not written by Tim Bray 
require)?

Graham Parks