- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 08:49:55 -0400
- To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
On 05/26/2011 05:03 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> 3. We add another note in section 2 that says something like "The >> term 'URI' is used throughout this specification. However, the >> term is used in its generic sense. The actual value space of URIs > > -1 > > That's not the "generic" sense. I agree with Julian on all points. We should be using the IRI terminology. Mischa's original comment after his read of the document demonstrated that the current language is confusing. Changing it in a minor way probably won't change how it reads to someone that has no idea about the nuances between all of the documents listed. While all of what you said is logically sound, Shane - I think people are going to become more and more confused if we keep using the term URI when we really mean IRI. /If/ for some reason we do end up using the term URI when we mean IRI, we should probably put some text in the document to this effect: """ RDFa has complete support for internationalized characters. This includes internationalized characters in the subject, property and object location. """ I think we should just come out and say something like that very early in the document in case there is any doubt. Perhaps we should put an example in the RDFa 1.1 Primer to that effect as well - Japanese, Arabic or some other language far removed from English may make the best example. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: PaySwarm Developer Tools and Demo Released http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/05/05/payswarm-sandbox/
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2011 12:50:41 UTC