W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > June 2006

Re: IRI versus URI terminology

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 12:08:34 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
I have made changes [1] -- more or less as proposed in the below copied 
email.  Have a look especially at, revised to have some strong 
similarities to current SVG Tiny 1.2 wording.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor/


1.) is the trickiest part, because IRI and URI both enter into the 
equation.  Does it look okay?

2.) I changed the text usage "namespace URI" to "namespace IRI".  Is that 
correct?  (I.e., "Namespaces in XML" does allow IRI?)

3.) However in Ch.5, for this draft, I left the name of the new DOM 
"namespaceURI" parameter alone wherever it occurred, until I check with the 
WG.  I can think of no reason that changing the DOM parameter name would 
have an impact.  RECOMMENDATION: change 'namespaceURI' to 'namespaceIRI' in 
DOM chapter and ECMAScript chapter.

4.) Same for the new DOM 'fileURI' parameter in Ch.5.

5.) 4.3.8:  Similarly I left the name of the new XCF 'uri' parameter alone 
in Ch.4.  Again, I guess there is no reason that changing the parameter's 
name would cause a problem.  As long as we change the DTD accordingly, then 
it should have no impact on implementations that currently work, 
right?  (Actually, those implementations would continue to work anyway -- 
there is no semantic content in the parameter 
name!)  RECOMMENDATION:  change 'uri' parameter to 'iri' in XCF chapter and 
external complete DTD.

6.) However, I decided to leave the 8-year-old 'linkuri' ApsAttr name as 
is, because of heavy legacy usage and familiarity.

7.) Note the change to the description change of 'uri' in 4.3.8.  Was: "The 
href of this 'linkuri' attribute".  Now is: "The IRI of this 'linkuri' 
attribute."  I don't think the description was very good as it was.

I'd like your feedback.  If any further changes, such as #3, 4, 5 above, 
then I'll do them next week for the LC text.


At 05:20 PM 5/31/2006 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>Hi Chris,
>I have the action item to fix the terminology, by changing "URI" to "IRI" 
>where appropriate -- unfinished Boeing item #24 [0].
>I'm thinking that some material like [2] & [3] from Tiny 1.2 ought to go 
>into WebCGM section 3.1 [1], and/or into a new informative discussion 
>section of Chapter 2.  Your thoughts about that?
>I find "URI" 105 places in the WebCGM 2.0 (Submission) spec.  I'm thinking 
>the following general guidelines should get it right in most places:
>a.) Most "URI" in the document should be changed to "IRI", except most of 
>those in should remain "URI".  Any exceptions to this?
>b.) What about the commonly used phrase, "URI fragment" or "URI fragment 
>syntax"?  (Which refers to 3986 "fragment identifiers", applied to the 
>WebCGM fragment per the rules of 3.1).  Is it correct to change these to 
>"IRI fragment"?  I looked again at 3986 and 3987 and the answer isn't 
>completely obvious to me.  However, Tiny 1.2 seems to do it that way [2], [3].
>c.) namespace URI?  (Occurrences in ch.4 and ch.5).  I assume that gets 
>changed to "namespace IRI"?
>You advice is appreciated.
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/linking.html#HeadOverview
>[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/linking.html#IRIandURI
Received on Saturday, 3 June 2006 18:09:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:38 UTC