- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:55:52 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
Adding this texts to, or similar, might indeed be a good idea... Ivan P.S. I didn't even remember this text from the RDFa spec... --- Ivan Herman Tel:+31 641044153 http://www.ivan-herman.net (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) > On 26 May 2016, at 18:44, Shane McCarron <notifications@github.com> wrote: > > Oh - I understand and agree that processing should be done using IRIs. I was just reacting to the name in the ontology. Regardless.... if we are standardizing on IRI, and I think we should be, there is some nice language in RDFa Core that we could roll in: > > RDFa is a way of expressing RDF-style relationships using simple attributes in existing markup languages such as HTML. RDF is fully internationalized, and permits the use of Internationalized Resource Identifiers, or IRIs. You will see the term 'IRI' used throughout this specification. Even if you are not familiar with the term IRI, you probably have seen the term 'URI' or 'URL'. IRIs are an extension of URIs that permits the use of characters outside those of plain ASCII. RDF allows the use of these characters, and so does RDFa. This specification has been careful to use the correct term, IRI, to make it clear that this is the case. > > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub > -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/241#issuecomment-221946008 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2016 17:55:54 UTC