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

Re[2]: IRI versus URI terminology

From: Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 11:49:29 -0400
Message-ID: <748728559.20060607114929@itedo.com>
To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

It seems to me that the 'uri' attribute should be renamed to href or
xlink:href.

I'll raise an issue about it once we have tracker.

-- 
Regards,
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com



Wednesday, June 7, 2006, 11:18:09 AM, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>  At 06:42 PM 6/6/2006 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>  Hearing no negative feedback, I went ahead and changed the
> parameter names to 'namespaceIRI', 'fileIRI', and 'iri'.  See #3, #4, #5 below.

>  I want to backpedal slightly.  I was thinking that all changes
> were only changes to terminology, or to the spec's names for
> parameters, in such a way that no existing implementations or tests would be affected.

>  But that's not quite true, there is one exception  For #5, the
> 'uri' would actually appear in XCF content, as in:
>      <linkuri uri="http://example.org/" ...>.  

>  So changing 'uri' to 'iri' would affect existing implementations,
> cascaded profiles, and tests.  Given that we have already decided to
> leave 'linkuri' alone, throughout the document, for reasons of its
> 8-year legacy, it actually makes sense to leave 'uri' as is.  (The
> description still makes clear that the value of the parameter is the IRI.)

>  So I propose that it should be 'uri' (in other words, undo this bit of yesterday's changes).

>  Comments?

>  -Lofton.

>  

>  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 3.1.1.1, revised to have
> some strong similarities to current SVG Tiny 1.2 wording.

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

>  Questions/comments:

>  1.) 3.1.1.4 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.

>  -Lofton.

>  
>  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].

>  [0]
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/20060528/proposed-changes-boeing/proposed-changes-boeing#Proposed-24

>  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 3.1.1.4 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.

>  Thanks,
>  -Lofton.

>  [1]
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/20060528/proposed-changes-boeing/WebCGM20-IC#webcgm_3_1
>  [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 15:52:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:08 GMT