W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: ACTION-79 discussion on URI vs. IRI in the specs

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 08:49:55 -0400
Message-ID: <4DDE4C73.8030800@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
On 05/26/2011 05:03 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>    3. We add another note in section 2 that says something like "The
>>       term 'URI' is used throughout this specification. However, the
>>       term is used in its generic sense. The actual value space of URIs
> 
> -1
> 
> That's not the "generic" sense.

I agree with Julian on all points. We should be using the IRI
terminology. Mischa's original comment after his read of the document
demonstrated that the current language is confusing. Changing it in a
minor way probably won't change how it reads to someone that has no idea
about the nuances between all of the documents listed.

While all of what you said is logically sound, Shane - I think people
are going to become more and more confused if we keep using the term URI
when we really mean IRI.

/If/ for some reason we do end up using the term URI when we mean IRI,
we should probably put some text in the document to this effect:

"""
RDFa has complete support for internationalized characters. This
includes internationalized characters in the subject, property and
object location.
"""

I think we should just come out and say something like that very early
in the document in case there is any doubt. Perhaps we should put an
example in the RDFa 1.1 Primer to that effect as well - Japanese, Arabic
or some other language far removed from English may make the best example.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarm Developer Tools and Demo Released
http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/05/05/payswarm-sandbox/
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2011 12:50:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:17 GMT