W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Intent to close ISSUE-205

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:26:58 -0600
Cc: <public-linked-json@w3.org>, "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CC1E2796-EF53-4BE6-B2FE-EEF71EB9972A@ihmc.us>
To: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Revolutionary though it may seem, I would suggest, when writing a Web standard, to actually use the terminology defined by other normative Web standards. That is, if you mean IRI, say "IRI", and if you mean URL, say "URL". To do otherwise is at best confusing, and at worst so bloody stupid that it is impossible to even discuss it politely.


On Jan 15, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:

>> I propose that, in the same spirit, we redefine "resolution" to mean
>> "masturbate", but go on using "resolution" as it is more polite.
> I think I will continue to use "resolution" :-)
>> PS. If you wish, you may take this to be an objection, but as I have
>> already redefined "objection" to mean "eats spaghetti on Wednesdays",
>> it will not really make a great deal of difference.
> Hmm... what would you propose as alternative? Keep using "IRI"? Use "JSON-LD
> URL"? Talk about "links" instead and in the few places it actually matters
> use IRI? Use a different term altogether?
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 15:27:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:09 UTC