W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > June 2008

Re: Error handling in URIs

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:37:05 +0900
Message-ID: <48635531.10308@w3.org>
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
CC: uri@w3.org

Frank Ellermann さんは書きました:
> Felix Sasaki wrote:
>
>   
>> See a similar problem and a solution for the usage of the
>> terms "URI" and "IRI" mentioned at
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Jun/0110.html
>>     
>
> Intentionally munging IRI and URI is bad for URI consumers
> with no clue what to do with an IRI.  The <ihost> part is
> not trivial.  Even the XML 1 spec. got it wrong, ending up
> with percent-encoded gibberish for a <host>.  This breaks
> existing software expecting *real* URIs, not IRIs.
>   

the above link points to an approach of not munging IRI and URI, but 
making the difference clear. I agree with you looking into IETF specs 
only there is no need for that, but different communities have 
established different terminology. See also Henry's mail, though I would 
not see the difference only between W3C / IETF versus the Web community, 
there are many other communities interested in identifiers, and often 
the terminology is a mess.

Felix

>   
>>> Most people seem to understand the intent, as far as I
>>> know you're the only person whom this has confused.
>>>       
>
> Clearly I don't like any "embrace, extend and extinguish",
> RFC 3987 doesn't "update" 3986.  That HTML5 allows IRIs is
> a major step, not some minor point.  URL = IRI is newspeak.
> Why not use the term IRI for IRIs, if that's what it is ?
>
> IRIs are cute for software supporting them.  But authors
> reading the HTML5 memo need to be aware that this is not
> everywhere the case.  Starting with the W3C validator as
> popular "legacy" software.
>
>  Frank
>
>
>   
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 08:38:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:41 GMT