Re: ACTION-79 discussion on URI vs. IRI in the specs

Okay - based upon this discussion I am changing every use of URI in the 
spec to IRI, including the use in datatype names.  This may have far 
reaching effects - I will keep you posted.

On 5/26/2011 9:32 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-05-26 15:58, Shane McCarron wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/26/2011 7:49 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Hmm.  Okay.  I am not going to fight about this.  I have several
>> concerns though:
>>
>>    1. We use datatypes that include the characters 'URI' in their
>>       names.  Some of these are legacy (e.g., @href) and immutable.
>>       Using a datatype name like 'SafeCURIEorCURIEorAbsIRI' on one
>>       attribute and 'URI' on another attribute will lead people to
>>       believe that one permits internationalized data and the other does
>>       not.  How do we reconcile this?
>>    2. We are dependent upon many other specifications, all of which seem
>>       to use the term 'URI' when they in fact mean 'IRI'.  XHTML
>>       Modularization is only one such.  You might also look at the RDF
>>       Recommendation (which uses weasel wording similar to what I
>>       proposed in its section 6.4).  If we use the term 'IRI' throughout
>>       our specifications, how to we connect this back to the term 'URI'
>>       in documents upon which we depend?
>>    3. In the case of HTML5+RDFa, HTML5 uses the term 'URL' in the way we
>>       would use the term 'IRI'.  How should we reconcile this?
>>    4. In the case of XHTML+RDFa, XHTML uses the term 'URI' in the way we
>>       would use the term 'IRI'.  How should we reconcile this?
>>    5. Other specifications (The Role Attribute, for example) depend upon
>>       our definition of CURIE.  If we shift our terminology to say 'IRI'
>>       when everyone else at the W3C seems to be using the term 'URI' or
>>       'URL' to mean the same thing, aren't we just introducing a
>>       potential source of confusion?
>> ...
>
> You are right that the W3C uses terms inconsistently. I believe the 
> best way to deal with this is to use the proper term, and to explain 
> that it may be called something else in other documents.
>
> Best regards, Julian

-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120

Received on Friday, 27 May 2011 18:24:55 UTC