Re: Confusing use of "URI" to refer to IRIs, and IRI handling in the DOM

Smylers wrote:
 > Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) writes:
 >
 >> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
 >>
 >>> In which case, why not use a term that doesn't have a precise
 >>> definition, but is well understood in general, like "web address" ?
 >> because loose ("imprecise") terminology has no place in a standard.
 >
 > But if HTML 5 adopts the term, then HTML 5 will define it -- most
 > precisely!
 >
 > The problem is that we have a definition, but no term for it.  Attempts
 > to re-use an already defined word (but with a slightly different
 > meaning) have yielded objections from those already familiar with the
 > current meaning.
 >
 > So if we don't re-define an existing term, then by necessity it will be
 > a term that, until now, hasn't had a precise definition.

I have no argument with any of these points : it was
not clear to me that Charles was proposing to /define/
"web address" rather than to continue to use it in some
loose and ill-defined way ...

Philip TAYLOR