RE: Exploring the change from Ref to Uri

Let's pull back a bit.  I think part of the problem is that it is possible
(even we during our calls sometimes) to get confused by the differences
between things like termInfoPointer, termInfoRef, and termInfoRefPointer.
As I understand it, anything ending with Pointer has an Xpath expression as
its value, and anything ending with Ref expects to point to an IRI.

In some ways, using IRI and Path, or Href and Location, or some such, might
help keep the distinctions clearer (though there may well be better terms).
It's not intuitively apparent that there's a difference between a ref and a
pointer.

Btw, Felix, these other vocabularies you looked at, what did they use, apart
from HTML and XLINK?  Note that in xmlspec termRef's value is an IDREF, not
a URI, so I'm thinking maybe that following your line or argument this would
be a good reason to avoid Ref too. (?)

RI




============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Duerst
> Sent: 26 July 2006 08:15
> To: Felix Sasaki; Yves Savourel
> Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Exploring the change from Ref to Uri
> 
> 
> I agree with Felix (and others). On top of that, I hope that 
> ITS actually uses IRIs, not URIs, in which case the name 
> SomethingUri may actually be more confusing than helpful.
> 
> [In the case that ITS only uses URIs and does not allow IRIs, 
> that would be a serious mistake that should be fixed quickly.]
> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
> At 00:00 06/07/26, Felix Sasaki wrote:
> >Hi Yves, all,
> >
> >I'm not sure if the change really makes things clearer. Looking at 
> >other vocabularies which require an URI data type, I don't find one 
> >with the
> >*name* "URI". For example, HTML has the href attribute, 
> XLink as well, ...
> >
> >should we really name the attributes after their data type, or isn't 
> >naming after their function the common way? I am not sure if 
> the term 
> >URI is common enough for that purpose.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Felix
> >
> >
> >
> >Yves Savourel wrote:
> >> Hello everyone,
> >> 
> >> My action item
> >> 
> _http://www.w3.org/2006/07/24-i18nits-minutes.html#action05_ was to 
> >> look at the possibility of renaming of all our 'xyzRef' 
> and 'xyzRefPointer'
> >> to 'xyzUri' and 'xyzUriPointer'.
> >> 
> >> This was a thought from Christian to clarify better the 
> value held by 
> >> the "Ref" attributes when we looked at the isssue #3494 during 
> >> today's call 
> (_http://www.w3.org/2006/07/24-i18nits-minutes.html#item06_).
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- Rational:
> >> 
> >> The content/values of the nodes pointed by all xyzRef 
> attributes are 
> >> always URI. We might as well make this clear by using 'Uri' in the 
> >> name of the attributes. Using the more generic 'Ref' could 
> possibly 
> >> lead to thinking that other types of value (e.g. an ID) 
> could be used.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- Things we would have to rename:
> >> 
> >> locNoteRef                      ->      locNoteUri
> >> locNoteRefPointer               ->      locNoteUriPointer
> >> termInfoRef                     ->      termInfoUri
> >> termInfoRefPointer      ->      termInfoUriPointer
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- Pros:
> >> 
> >> - More specific, and therefore clearer.
> >> - Last chance to make that change.
> >> - It would be consistant with uri in <its:ns> where we 
> call the URI 'uri'.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- Cons:
> >> 
> >> - May could be seen as a substantive change by some(?)
> >> - Lot of references and examples, to change.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- Personnal opinion:
> >> 
> >> I would think it's probably a good idea to change the 
> attribute names 
> >> from 'Ref' to 'Uri'.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Cheers,
> >> -yves
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> >Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
> >Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
> >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
> >
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> >Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> >iD8DBQFExjIacU6f2Avofx4RAq9ZAJ90BQa2V3rf0R3OcceWIW2qiEdFZQCgzADA
> >MYLo7bHOb2N9lmGg8ecrK1k=
> >=7qyp
> >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       
> mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2006 11:29:27 UTC