W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: [WIDGET PC] i18n comment 2: Clarify IRI/URI

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:01:24 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670907100601o464dfa62h6b758e42e264a5aa@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:32 GMT