Re: Should specifications take sides in the httpRange-14 debate?

On 21 Nov 2012, at 16:49, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 21 November 2012 15:11, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
> 
> On 21 Nov 2012, at 15:03, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/21/12 8:10 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I think there Larry makes a good point with regard to URI/URLs. Now that we have
>>>> agreed to restrict to http/https URI's we should use the URI term, as that deals
>>>> with internationalisation.
>>>> 
>>>> you mean IRI right? That was also part of Antoine's feedback to switch from URI to IRI.
>>> 
>>> We go for what we need. Larry wrote:
>>> 
>>> "The design proposed is one where there is a WebID protocol element whose value resembles a URL (not a URI? Surely you are not planning on requiring the non-English world to use ASCII WebIDs?) "
>>> 
>>> It seems that URIs are enough for that problem.
>> 
>> You are being selective again. You use IRI once internationalization is a factor, end of story. 
> 
> Larry Masinter was being selective. Why was he? I am sure he knows of IRIs too.
> 
> If you want IRIs please open an issue for it.
> 
> It may be possible that larry made a typo :)

Can you ask him if he did?  Please report back to the mailing list of the thread where he answers that.


>  
> 
> Henry
> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Kingsley Idehen	      
>> Founder & CEO 
>> OpenLink Software     
>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/