- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:43:52 +0100
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Dave Reynolds wrote: > > Chris Welty wrote: >> We have not proposed avoiding IRIs, we are considering whether the >> spec should "require" them, in a sense, or make them an alternative. I >> see the choices as having "URI or IRI" in the spec vs. just "IRI". > > Having both really would be confusing IMHO. > In some sense, the way to have both is to specify IRI. End users (mainly in the US and the UK) who have no need of the features of IRIs, can use URIs (which are IRIs). People who want to use an IRI that isn't a URI can also use that. It certainly is never a requirement of a specification that uses IRIs that documents must include funny characters. Jeremy -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 15:44:34 UTC