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

Re: Official RDFa Response: ISSUE-87: IRIs vs URI References

From: Mischa Tuffield <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:44:18 +0100
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F1B7EC5E-DCF3-48CD-B129-4F7BE5770C51@garlik.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Hi Manu/All, 

Thanks for this. I can confirm that having looked at your resolution you have addressed the concerns which I initially raised. As per the resolution you cited in your minutes [1], I can confirm that you have satisfied my concern. 

FWIW, it looks like you have taken the same approach to handling punycoded IRIs as the RDF WG.

All the best, and good luck with the rest of the RDFa work. 

Regards,
 
Mischa 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-05-19#resolution_1
On 28 May 2011, at 19:20, Manu Sporny wrote:

> Mischa,
> 
> Thank you for reviewing and commenting on the RDFa Core 1.1
> specification. This is an official response to your 2nd Last Call
> comments on RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1. The issue is being tracked
> here:
> 
> ISSUE-87: IRIs vs URI References
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/87
> 
> You had asked the Working Group to make sure that the terminology used
> in the RDFa Core 1.1 specification matches that used in the other
> Semantic Web documents (like SPARQL, RDF and the soon-to-be REC-track
> TURTLE specification).
> 
> We had initially decided to stick with the URI References terminology
> because it referenced the IRI specification [RFC3987], and so was
> technically correct. However, as we discussed the issue in more depth,
> it became clear that staying with the older terminology might confuse
> readers. We decided to migrate to the new "IRI" terminology to come in
> line with the rest of the documents that you mentioned and to make it
> clear to readers that RDFa is a fully internationalized technology. The
> decision was recorded here:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-05-19#resolution_1
> 
> Since this is an official response, please let us know as soon as you
> can if this decision satisfies your concerns by responding to this
> e-mail, ensuring to CC the RDFa WG mailing list.
> 
> -- 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/
> 

___________________________________
Mischa Tuffield PhD
Email: mischa.tuffield@garlik.com
Homepage - http://mmt.me.uk/
+44(0)208 439 8200  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD



Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 10:44:53 GMT

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