DR 09-0291 ? OPC: Use of term "Unicode string"

[Chris Rae]

Hi Murata-san - thanks for getting back so quickly on this.

I think your concern applies to part names themselves (specified in 9.1.1.1) rather than Annex A, which explains how to transliterate arbitrary strings into part names. If so we probably need to modify this DR to refer to 9.1.1.1, where part name restrictions are specified. I'm not sure if we can modify a DR or not so you might have to make another one.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp] 
Sent: 12 August 2010 17:06
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: DR 09-0291 ? OPC: Use of term "Unicode string"

I am against the first option, and support the last option.

This area has been clumsy for the past 20 years.  Different spec did slightly different but equally ad-hoc things.  Things have become messier and messier.  Now, we have LEIRI, IRIs, and URIs.  I guess that more than 10000 e-mails have been written for standardizing them.  Why don't we simply use LEIRI, IRIs, and URIs?

See Clause 5 in LEIRI.  It shows what is not allowed as part of IRIs but allowed as part of LEIRIs.  Does OPC do the same thing?  Or, does OPC do something different?

http://www.w3.org/TR/leiri/

The same topic has been discussed for HTML5 for 2 years.  In the case of HTML5, people appear to have some reason for inventing our own "URL5".
But I do not see any reasons not to use LEIRI in OPC at least now.

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/56

Cheers,
Makoto