- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:11:35 -0700
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: Manuel.CARRASCO-BENITEZ@ec.europa.eu, public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2015 18:12:11 UTC
On Aug 12, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: >> >> * ?R? >> URI, URL, URN, IRI. Just use URI everywhere and add something like: >> >> "In this specification, the term URI is used for the identification schemes: URI, URL, URN and IRI ..." >> >> This is line with the recommendation in RFC3986 >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-1.1.3 >> >> " ... Future specifications and related documentation should use the general term "URI" rather than the more restrictive terms "URL" and "URN" ..." > > But we *want* to be restrictive. We're only talking about HTTP URIs, we're not talking about URNs, or even URLs. Hence I think we need to say something, no? Funny, I take the fact that we want to be restricted to discussing URIs as a reason *not* to add a discussion about them vs. URNs or URLs. The fact that we use a term in our document doesn’t mean that we have to define it. It is defined elsewhere in W3C space plenty. Our document is already annoyingly long; let’s help readers get to what is helpful information and leave out discussion that is not unique to publishing data on the web. -- Annette Greiner NERSC Data and Analytics Services Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 510-495-2935
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2015 18:12:11 UTC