- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:01:24 +0200
- To: ishida@w3.org
- Cc: public-Webapps@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:08 PM, <ishida@w3.org> wrote: > Comment from the i18n review of: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/ > > Comment 2 > At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets-pc/ > Editorial/substantive: E > Tracked by: AP > > Location in reviewed document: > Section 8.3 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/#attribute-types] > > Comment: > Section 8.3 (Attribute Types) contains a subsection called "URI Attribute" which is relevant to our comment above. It says: > > -- > > An attribute defined as containing a valid URI. A valid URI is one that matches the URI token of the [URI] specification or the IRI token of the [RFC3987] specification. The value of this kind of attribute is retrieved using the rule for getting a single attribute value. -- > > This is problematical, since all URIs are IRIs, but not the converse. We think this should favor IRI and note the relationship to URI. > Ok, this a minor editorial change (applied globally). I made it really simple: [[ IRI attribute An attribute defined as containing a valid IRI. A valid IRI is one that matches the IRI token of the [RFC3987] specification. ]] I think most people know that IRI are a super-set of URIs, so I did not point out the difference. Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 10 July 2009 13:02:26 UTC