W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > October 2012

Re: [all] URI vs IRI in draft

From: Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:21:29 +0100
To: "Dave Lewis" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <598DFE35-30E3-4900-964B-A024FEC65A85@vistatec.ie>
Cc: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>

IRI  +1

Phil



On 17 Oct 2012, at 07:04, "Dave Lewis" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>


************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail.

www.vistatec.com
************************************************************
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 14:22:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:55 UTC