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

Re: IRI versus URI terminology

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:42:51 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
Hearing no negative feedback, I went ahead and changed the parameter names 
to 'namespaceIRI', 'fileIRI', and 'iri'.  See #3, #4, #5 below.


At 12:08 PM 6/3/2006 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>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 Wednesday, 7 June 2006 00:42:55 UTC

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