- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 23:17:01 +0200
- To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Marcin, On Jul 24, 2009, at 18:36 , Marcin Hanclik wrote: > Why is the Widgets 1.0: URI Scheme about URI and not IRI? Because it was written quickly :) And also because I'm sick and tired of the level of terminology needed to address (no pun intended) what should be a simple field — I'd like to just say "URI" and since this isn't a legacy context obviously it means IRI with the added advantage that it doesn't hurt the brains of the majority of readers... Anyway, no point in ranting over spilt beer I guess. Based on the follow-up discussion what I've done is that I've used IRI throughout the specification except when discussing URI schemes. I've also updated the reference to be to RFC 3987 and the syntax to reference iauthority, iquery, and ifragment — which is indeed more correct. Thanks! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 21:17:37 UTC