The Atom 0.3 draft [1] states that "Link constructs MUST have a href
attribute, whose value MUST be a URI [RFC2396]" [2]. Should this be
changed to "whose value MUST be a URI, as defined by RFC2396 or its
successor," so that Atom can benefit from RFC2396bis? [3]
Alternatively, we could state "whose value MUST be an IRI" [4]. After
reading all three specs (RFC 2396, RFC 2396bis, and the IRI draft),I
am not entirely sure what their relationship is. RFC 2396bis appears
to obsolete RFC 2396, and IRIs appear to "have a dependency on RFC
2396bis" [5]. Currently Atom mandates RFC 2396 only. I do not see
any discussion of this on the Atom wiki [6], and only one passing
mention of it in the list archives. [7]
Could someone with more experience shed some light on this situation?
[1] http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-atom-format-02.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
[3] http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004Feb/0001.html
[6] http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/UniversalResourceIdentifier
[7] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg02941.html
--
Cheers,
-Mark
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
