Tr: WG Review: Internationalized Resource Identifiers (iri)

Hi,

Don't we have to do something for news: and nntp: as for
internationalized resource identifiers?
It would be about internationalized newsgroup names...

Julien

> Internationalized Resource Identifiers (iri)
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> Description of Working Group:
> 
> This working group will produce
> * A new version of RFC 3987: "Internationalized Resource
> Identifiers (IRIs)" using draft-duerst-iri-bis as the base
> * A new version of RFC 4395: "Guidelines and Registration
> Procedures for New URI Schemes"
> 
> The new version of RFC 3987 may be split into separate documents,
> if, in the opinion of the chair(s), it would facilitate distribution
> of the workload and allow more focused reviews. For example, the
> following breakdown has been suggested:
> 
> * Handling of Internationalized domain names in IRIs (BCP)
> * Internationalization Considerations in IRIs (guidelines
> for BIDI, character ranges to avoid, special considerations) (BCP)
> * Syntax, parsing, comparison of IRIs (Standards track)
> 
> The working group starts with a relatively mature update to
> RFC 3987 in preparation; the primary focus of the group
> is to resolve conflicting uses, requirements and best practices
> for internationalized URLs/URIs/IRIs and various other forms,
> among many specifications and committees, while moving toward
> consistent use of IRIs among the wide range of Internet
> applications that use them. In particular:
> 
> * The IRI specification(s) must (continue to) be suitable
> for normative reference with Web and XML standards from W3C
> specifications. The group should coordinate with the W3C working
> groups on HTML5, XML Core, and Internationalization, as well
> as with IETF HTTPBIS WG to ensure acceptability.
> * The IRI specification(s) should be follow best practices
> for domain names. The group should coordinate with the IETF
> IDNABIS working group and Unicode Consortium to assure acceptability.
> * Explicit review by experts on (and native speakers) of RTL
> languages, of the recommendations for BIDI languages,
> is required.
> 
> The Working Group will examine at least one and possibly more
> URI/IRI schemes to check that the new specification(s) are
> appropriate for existing schemes. Schemes suggested for
> review include http:, pop:, imap:, xmpp:, mailto:, and sip:.
> 
> Changes to RFC 3986 ("Uniform Resource Identifier (URI):
> Generic Syntax") are explicitly out of scope of this charter,
> and may only be considered with a charter update.
> 
> Goals and Milestones:
> 
> January 2010 Additional update of Internet drafts by editor(s)
> February 2010 Review of Internet Drafts, directions during W3C and IETF
> May 2010 Working group Last Call of all documents
> June 2010 Publish IRI documents as RFCs (BCP, standards track, as 
> appropriate)