W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2008

Re: Spec review: "URI (or IRI)"

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:29:52 +0000 (UTC)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0806272328350.17498@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> I was reading through parts of Section 3, and noticed that the spec 
> seems to inherit outdated terminology from HTML4, and makes it even 
> worse by throwing in IRIs.
> 
> For instance, in 3.7.4 (<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#the-link>), it 
> says:
> 
> "The destination of the link is given by the href attribute, which must 
> be present and must contain a URI (or IRI)."
> 
> First of all, the destination can be a relative reference as well, so it 
> should either say "URI or relative reference", or "URI-Reference" 
> (RFC3986, Section 4.1).

This has been fixed, though in a way I imagine you don't like, by defining 
"URL" and using that term throughout.


> Looking at <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#terminology>, it says:
> 
> "For readability, the term URI is used to refer to both ASCII URIs and 
> Unicode IRIs, as those terms are defined by RFC 3986 and RFC 3987 
> respectively, and as modified by RFC 2732. On the rare occasions where 
> IRIs are not allowed but ASCII URIs are, this is called out explicitly. 
> [RFC3986] [RFC3987] [RFC2732]"
> 
> I find that confusing, in particular if other sections of the text 
> continue to say "URI (or IRI)". (Of course the reference to RFC2732 
> doesn't make any sense at all, as it has been incorporated into 
> RFC3986.)

I've removed that section and removed occurances of "(or IRI)".

Cheers,
-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 27 June 2008 23:30:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:18 GMT