RE: Closing Issue 502 ( was RE: Issue 502 is closed )

OK with me either way.  Thanks.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@xxxxxx
10/21/2004 12:29 PM

 
        To:     "Martin Duerst" <duerst@xxxxxx>, <aphillips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
"I18n WSTF" 
<public-i18n-ws@xxxxxx>, <xml-dist-app@xxxxxx>
        cc:     "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@xxxxxx>, (bcc: Noah 
Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        RE: Closing Issue 502 ( was RE: Issue 502 is closed )



Martin,

Thank you for your detailed and comprehensive response. The current
editors copy says:

"The type of the resource attribute information item is xs:anyURI. The
value of the resource attribute information item is a URI that
identifies the Web resource whose representation is carried in the
rep:Representation element information item parent of the resource
attribute information item. NOTE: the use of the xs:anyURI type
anticipates the possibility that in the future schemes will be developed
that use IRI rather than URI naming for resources."

I would be happy to change this to your text:

"The type of the resource attribute information item is xs:anyURI. The
value of the resource attribute information item identifies the Web
resource whose representation is carried in the rep:Representation
element information item parent of the resource attribute information
item."

What do others in the XMLP WG think?

Gudge 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@xxxxxx] 
> Sent: 21 October 2004 00:00
> To: Martin Gudgin; aphillips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; I18n WSTF; 
> xml-dist-app@xxxxxx
> Cc: Yves Lafon
> Subject: RE: Closing Issue 502 ( was RE: Issue 502 is closed )
> 
> Hello Martin,
> 
> I'm not sure anymore about the exact wording of the original comment,
> but the intention was definitely to make sure that IRIs worked, and
> that the spec, test cases, and implementations would not do anything
> that contradicted that.
> 
> I think the problem in the CR text at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-soap12-rep-20040826/#rep-resource is that
> it says that "the value of the resource attribute information item
> is a URI", while the definition of anyURI at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#anyURI
> very clearly does NOT say that the value space of anyURI is URIs.
> In particular, it says "The mapping from anyURI values to URIs is...",
> and so makes it clear that in terms of XML Schema, the value space
> is the space of IRIs, not URIs.
> (see also
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/datatypes.h
> tml#anyURI,
> which hasn't changed this).
> 
> So I was taking the CR text as restricting the attribute to URIs only,
> and I think that anybody else may also easily read it that way.
> If that, as you say, is not the intention of the XMLP WG, then the
> text should be changed. I propose the following:
> 
>  >>>>>
> The type of the resource attribute information item is xs:anyURI.
> The value of the resource attribute information item
> identifies the Web resource whose representation is carried in the
> rep:Representation element information item parent of the resource
> attribute information item.
>  >>>>
> 
> And maybe add a note such as:
> 
>  >>>>
> Note: The anyURI type allows non-ASCII characters, and defines how
>        to convert an anyURI value to an (ASCII-only) URI if necessary.
>  >>>>
> 
> At 14:43 04/10/19, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>  >
>  >Speaking for myself; my understanding from the issue raised was that
>  >IRIs contain actual Unicode octets outside the ASCII range, 
> hence the
>  >examples you provided.
> 
> Yes indeed.
> 
>  >xs:anyURI allows this. The type of the attribute
>  >in question is xs:anyURI.
> 
> Yes, but your language seemed to disallow this, as explained above.
> 
> 
>  >The HTTP spec clearly disallows this as only
>  >ASCII characters are allowed in the URI portion, hence the 
> encoding as
>  >UTF-8 using %HH
> 
> Yes, but this only applies to URIs in the HTTP protocol (e.g. in
> a GET request). In the resource attribute, non-ASCII characters are
> allowed, independent of the URI scheme (i.e. even for http://....).
> 
>  >If you really believe that IRI == Unicode octets == ASCII encoded
>  >unicode octets
> 
> Well, this is not a matter of believing, this is a matter of 
> specifying
> and implementation. And it depends on your use of "==", it's 
> exact meaning.
> 
>  >then I really don't understand your original issue
>  >because as far as I can tell ALL three versions of the text we have
>  >provided to you would allow one or more of the two encodings. Out
>  >original text in the CR spec allowed both. The first amended version
>  >provided to you allowed ASCII encoded unicode octets, the 
> latest version
>  >allows both.
> 
> As I have shown above, that doesn't seem to be the case.
> 
>  >So I don't understand your concern. You wanted the spec to 
> allow IRIs.
>  >As far as I can tell, given your definiton below, it always has.
> 
> No, it hasn't, because it restricts the value space of anyURI from
> IRIs to URIs. If that wasn't the intention of the XMLP WG, then it's
> easy to fix.
> 
> Regards,    Martin.
> 
>  >Gudge
>  >
>  >> -----Original Message-----
>  >> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@xxxxxx]
>  >> Sent: 18 October 2004 21:59
>  >> To: Martin Gudgin; aphillips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; I18n WSTF;
>  >> xml-dist-app@xxxxxx
>  >> Cc: Yves Lafon
>  >> Subject: RE: Closing Issue 502 ( was RE: Issue 502 is closed )
>  >>
>  >> At 23:51 04/10/15, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>  >>  >I think the sentence makes sense as is, but I've added the
>  >> 'the' anyway. We
>  >>  >used 'schemes' because our understanding is that it's the
>  >> scheme which
>  >>  >defines what characters are legal in an identifier per 
> that scheme.
>  >>
>  >> I was confused quite a bit by this because I assumed that 'scheme'
>  >> was referring to the XML Schema that would restrict the 
> use of anyURI
>  >> to ASCII only for the time being.
>  >>
>  >> Now that I have again read through the thread, my understanding is
>  >> that by "scheme", you mean URI scheme. If that's the case, then
>  >> the text (independent of the various tweaks discussed) is based on
>  >> some very wrong assumptions.
>  >>
>  >> As discussed quite explicitly and extensively in issue 
> iri-scheme-38
>  >> (http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/Overview.html#iri-sc
>  >heme-38),
>  >> and reflected in the spec itself in many ways (not the least being
>  >> various examples), there is no a priori distinction between URI
>  >> schemes and IRI schemes. There are only URI schemes, but every
>  >> URI scheme can, potentially at least, be used with IRIs.
>  >>
>  >> The condition for use with IRIs is, roughly, that the 
> scheme requires
>  >> or allows non-ASCII characters to be encoded in UTF-8 and 
> %HH in the
>  >> URI scheme or actual URIs or parts thereoff.
>  >>
>  >> As such, in particular the HTTP scheme definitely 
> qualifies for use
>  >> with IRIs, because it allows non-ASCII characters to be encoded in
>  >> UTF-8 and %HH. Because it only allows, rather than requires, this,
>  >> individual HTTP URIs, or parts theroff, may work more or less well
>  >> with IRIs. Indeed, if you put a HTTP URI containing a %HH sequence
>  >> based on UTF-8 in its path into the location field of a modern
>  >> browser (e.g. Opera or Safari), it will automatically convert
>  >> this to actual (Unicode) characters. On the other hand, if you
>  >> input an http: IRI there, these browsers (and some others) will
>  >> automatically convert using UTF-8 and %HH as part of their
>  >> HTTP resolution.
>  >>
>  >> So the fundamental assumption behind the text is wrong; IRIs
>  >> can be used already with many existing URI schemes.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Regards,     Martin.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>  >> > Dear Martin and I18N,
>  >>  >> >
>  >>  >> > Regarding issue 502[1], the XMLP Working Group has amended
>  >>  >> section 4.2.2
>  >>  >> > if the Resource Representation SOAP Header Block
>  >>  >> specification to read:
>  >>  >> >
>  >>  >> > "The type of the resource attribute information item is
>  >>  >> xs:anyURI. The
>  >>  >> > value of the resource attribute information item is 
> a URI that
>  >>  >> > identifies the Web resource whose representation is
>  >> carried in the
>  >>  >> > rep:Representation element information item parent of
>  >> the resource
>  >>  >> > attribute information item. NOTE: the use of the 
> xs:anyURI type
>  >>  >> > anticipates the possibility that in future schemes will
>  >> be developed
>  >>  >> > that use IRI rather than URI naming for resources."
>  >>  >> >
>  >>  >> > We trust this addresses your concern about allowing IRIs in
>  >>  >> the resource
>  >>  >> > attribute.
>  >>  >> >
>  >>  >> > Regards
>  >>  >> >
>  >>  >> > Martin Gudgin
>  >>  >> > For the XMLP WG
>  >>  >> >
>  >>  >> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x502
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >>
>  >>
>  >> 
> 
>