- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:29:52 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Julian Reschke wrote: > > I was reading through parts of Section 3, and noticed that the spec > seems to inherit outdated terminology from HTML4, and makes it even > worse by throwing in IRIs. > > For instance, in 3.7.4 (<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#the-link>), it > says: > > "The destination of the link is given by the href attribute, which must > be present and must contain a URI (or IRI)." > > First of all, the destination can be a relative reference as well, so it > should either say "URI or relative reference", or "URI-Reference" > (RFC3986, Section 4.1). This has been fixed, though in a way I imagine you don't like, by defining "URL" and using that term throughout. > Looking at <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#terminology>, it says: > > "For readability, the term URI is used to refer to both ASCII URIs and > Unicode IRIs, as those terms are defined by RFC 3986 and RFC 3987 > respectively, and as modified by RFC 2732. On the rare occasions where > IRIs are not allowed but ASCII URIs are, this is called out explicitly. > [RFC3986] [RFC3987] [RFC2732]" > > I find that confusing, in particular if other sections of the text > continue to say "URI (or IRI)". (Of course the reference to RFC2732 > doesn't make any sense at all, as it has been incorporated into > RFC3986.) I've removed that section and removed occurances of "(or IRI)". Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 27 June 2008 23:30:29 UTC