- From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:04:00 +0100
- To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
I think the logic of our application domain means that the need for IRI is likely, e.g. for non-latin disambig references, or provenance records from a chinese LSP, so I think we should harmonise on IRI. Regards, Dave On 17/10/2012 13:24, Yves Savourel wrote: > I've noticed that while most sections talk about URI for Ref-type attributes, a few uses IRI (like the provenance). > There is also the section 3.7 that specifically says that a few attributes must support IRIs. > > 1) We probably want to harmonize this and use URI or IRI consistently. > > 2) the section 3.7 needs to be updated. If we keep using the term URI. > > -yves > >
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 14:04:41 UTC