- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:21:49 +0100
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Dear Larry, thank you for your comments. On Oct 10, 2009, at 19:44 , Larry Masinter wrote: > 5) ** EDITORIAL USE OF URI FOR IRI ** > > "Throughout this specification, wherever the term URI [URI] is used, it can be replaced interchangeably with the term IRI [RFC3987]. All widget URIs are IRIs, but the term URI is more common and was therefore preferred for readability." > > Seriously, do we need a W3C Guideline or Finding to cover "DO NOT REDEFINE TERMS"? > There's glory for you! (see http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm ). > > Suggestion: Use "IRI" since that's what is meant. It seems that we seriously need a finding explaining to specification authors that creating new terms where existing widely used ones can be made to work is a bad idea that will most likely fail. Most technically savvy people I have ever met don't know what an IRI is, and of the happy few who do I've seen many a native English speaker stumble while trying to speak of them orally. All that is needed for interoperability is for implementers to know that widget URIs are IRIs, and the document addresses that. Importing the "IRI" term into our space would have as sole further benefit to import the confusion and tongue-twisting that surround it. I recommend that while IRIs are being reinvestigated at the IETF, the naming issue be addressed. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2009 12:22:25 UTC