Re: Last Call comments on IRI - 3.1 Mapping of IRIs to URIs

There is also the following Note:

  Note: The difference between Variants B and C in Step 1 (Variant B
      using normalization with NFC while Variant C not using any
      normalization) is to account for the fact that in many non-Unicode
      character encodings, some text cannot be represented directly.
      For example, Vietnam is natively written "Việt Nam"
      (containing a LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH CIRCUMFLEX AND DOT BELOW
      in NFC, but a direct transcoding from the windows-1258 character
      encoding leads to "Việt Nam" (containing a LATIN SMALL
      LETTER E WITH CIRCUMFLEX followed by a COMBINING DOT BELOW),
      whereas direct transcoding of other 8-bit encodings of Vietnamese
      may lead to other representations.

Would moving this closer to the A/B/C variants, and maybe adding
some text, be a solution to your last call comment?

Regards,     Martin.


At 14:50 04/08/18 +0900, Martin Duerst wrote:

> Hello Chris,
>
> Many thanks for your comment. I have made it issue why-not-normalize-42
> (see http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit#why-not-normalize-42).
>
> A few ideas on how to deal with it below.
>
> At 22:22 04/08/11 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
>
> > Hello ,
> >
> > > If the IRI is in an Unicode-based character encoding (for example
> > > UTF-8 or UTF-16): Do not normalize. Apply Step 2 directly to the
> > > encoded Unicode character sequence.

> > I believe that I understand why this step says 'do not normalize'
> > (otherwise, certain Unicode strings couldnever be used in query parts,
> > for example).
> >
> > However, as the two preceding steps say 'normalize' and this step says
> > 'do not normalize' the reader could be confused - or perhaps consider it
> > an 'obvious error'.
> >
> > Do not tease the reader like this. Please explain *why* at this stage no
> > normalization is performed.
>
> You definitely have a point. But as you have noticed, the explanations
> are already given elsewhere in the document. I think there are several
> things that can be done:
>
> - capitalize 'NOT', to make clear that this is not an 'obvious error'.
> - add a pointer to 5.3 Normalization
>
> (http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri.html#normaliza 
> (http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri.html#normalization)
> - do both of the above
>
> Which one do you prefer? Do you think this is enough, or do you have
> some other idea (actual wording preferred)?
>
>
> Regards,    Martin.