- From: Walter Underwood <wunder@verity.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:40:23 -0700
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Cc: public-iri@w3.org
--On Tuesday, April 27, 2004 1:16 PM +0900 Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org> wrote: > > It is indeed the case that IRIs are currently difficult to > search for; Google for example brings up the first IRI-related > reference on position 54. > > However, it should be expected that this will improve once the > spec becomes an RFC, and gets referenced from other places. > Search is also possible by using the full name > (Internationalized Resource Identifiers) or e.g. by combining > IRI and URI. Yahoo is doing somewhat better, with a hit at #34. Thanks for considering this. I expect that you are wrong about searchability improving. That would require the acronym to become unambiguous or more popular than the other expansions. Other people will not rename their institutes or companies because of someone else's standard, so the conflicts will remain. And internet standards have not been the most important documents on the web for several years. Expecting searchers to type "internationalized" is unreasonable, especially considering that a lot of experts have given up on that and use "i18n" for "internationalization". I recommend buying ads if you want this term to be found. wunder -- Walter Underwood Principal Architect, Verity
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:44:56 UTC