- From: Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:21:29 +0100
- To: "Dave Lewis" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Cc: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
IRI +1 Phil On 17 Oct 2012, at 07:04, "Dave Lewis" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > ************************************************************ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by e-mail. www.vistatec.com ************************************************************
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 14:22:04 UTC