W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > April 2005

Rationalize URI vs. IRI (Core, clarification)

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:04:50 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A507280994@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org>

The mixed use of the acronyms URI and IRI is a bit confusing.  Sometimes
the draft uses IRI, and sometimes it uses URI.  However, simply using
IRI throughout has problems too.  We suggest as a principle for when to
use IRI vs. URI that when specific instances of IRIs can be identified
as URIs by inspection (e.g. the anonymous URI), and we should call them
URIs to make it clear they can be used in any context where a URI is
allowed.  The types of the properties are rightly described as IRIs,
since the range of values is greater than allowed by URIs.  Following
this principle would result in the following changes:

- Last sentence before 1.1: 'Line (010) specifies an action URI
identifying expected semantics.' (Note also case correction.)

- Last sentence in section 2.2: 'The following shows an example endpoint
reference. This element references the endpoint at the URI
"http://example.com/www.fabrikam/acct".' (Note also extra "the"

- Section 3 [relationship]: 'The message identifier IRI may refer to a
specific message, or be the following well-known URI that means
"unspecified message":

- Table 3-1 heading 'URI'.

- Section 3 [relationship]: 'A reply message MUST contain a
[relationship] property consisting of the predefined reply URI and the
message id property of the request message.'

- Section 3 [relationship]: 'WS-Addressing defines the following
well-known URI for use by endpoints that cannot have a stable,
resolvable IRI: "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/role/anonymous".'

- Section 3.1 4th bullet: '[relationship]: a new pair of IRIs is added
to this value as follows; the relationship type is the predefined reply
URI "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/reply" ...'
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 16:04:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:59 UTC