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

On 2011-05-26 15:58, Shane McCarron wrote:
>
>
> On 5/26/2011 7:49 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Hmm.  Okay.  I am not going to fight about this.  I have several
> concerns though:
>
>    1. We use datatypes that include the characters 'URI' in their
>       names.  Some of these are legacy (e.g., @href) and immutable.
>       Using a datatype name like 'SafeCURIEorCURIEorAbsIRI' on one
>       attribute and 'URI' on another attribute will lead people to
>       believe that one permits internationalized data and the other does
>       not.  How do we reconcile this?
>    2. We are dependent upon many other specifications, all of which seem
>       to use the term 'URI' when they in fact mean 'IRI'.  XHTML
>       Modularization is only one such.  You might also look at the RDF
>       Recommendation (which uses weasel wording similar to what I
>       proposed in its section 6.4).  If we use the term 'IRI' throughout
>       our specifications, how to we connect this back to the term 'URI'
>       in documents upon which we depend?
>    3. In the case of HTML5+RDFa, HTML5 uses the term 'URL' in the way we
>       would use the term 'IRI'.  How should we reconcile this?
>    4. In the case of XHTML+RDFa, XHTML uses the term 'URI' in the way we
>       would use the term 'IRI'.  How should we reconcile this?
>    5. Other specifications (The Role Attribute, for example) depend upon
>       our definition of CURIE.  If we shift our terminology to say 'IRI'
>       when everyone else at the W3C seems to be using the term 'URI' or
>       'URL' to mean the same thing, aren't we just introducing a
>       potential source of confusion?
> ...

You are right that the W3C uses terms inconsistently. I believe the best 
way to deal with this is to use the proper term, and to explain that it 
may be called something else in other documents.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 26 May 2011 14:33:32 UTC