Re: [all] URI vs IRI in draft

I think the logic of our application domain means that the need for IRI 
is likely, e.g. for non-latin disambig references, or provenance records 
from a chinese LSP, so I think we should harmonise on IRI.


On 17/10/2012 13:24, Yves Savourel wrote:
> I've noticed that while most sections talk about URI for Ref-type attributes, a few uses IRI (like the provenance).
> There is also the section 3.7 that specifically says that a few attributes must support IRIs.
> 1) We probably want to harmonize this and use URI or IRI consistently.
> 2) the section 3.7 needs to be updated. If we keep using the term URI.
> -yves

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 14:04:41 UTC