- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 20:13:42 +0200
- To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Robert Burns wrote: > ... > I wonder if we shouldn't be more specific and use the locator term when > it applies. I'm not sure if any RFC deals with this, but many of the > attributes that take IRIs in HTML5 really only take locators and not the > broader identifier (is there an RFC on IRLs?). If an attribute is going > to take IRI as its data type, then I think we should clearly define what > it means when the IRI is not a locator. For example, the proposal I made > on associating attributions, citations, and references, where I defined > how URNs (or would it be IRNs?) would be used[1]. > > So I think there are two axes to deal with: 1) ASCII v Unicode and 2) > Locator and Name versus Identifier. > ... Not sure. URLs can be used as names, when chosen carefully (namespace names come to mind). URNs can be used as locators, if people choose to define and implement a protocol. (See also <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-1.1.3>). Can you elaborate where the distinction is meaningful in the context of HTML? Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 2 September 2007 18:13:58 UTC