Re: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (5)

Robin Berjon wrote:
> Hi Julian,
> 
> On Dec 15, 2009, at 17:34 , Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Robin Berjon wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Meta-comment: this is why I think re-defining things to make things "less confusing" is the wrong approach.
>>
>> Please-coordinate with HTML5's Ian Hickson, who thinks that "URL" is the right term to use, rather than "URI" (here), and the proper terminology.
> 
> I think that solving the URL/URI/IRI/whatever else terminology issue for everyone else is not within our mandate (and I think I speak for many when I say we're quite happy about that). Both URL and URI are nowadays in reasonably wide usage in the technical community so I don't think that it matters much if HTML5 uses one and widgets the other.
> 
> When the IETF, the TAG, or whoever else takes it upon themselves to finally tackle this universally I am sure that we'll be happy to align.

Well, for now the answer is in RFC 3986 and 3987, and I currently do not 
see any attempt to change what URI or IRI mean, just new terms defined 
on top of it.

BR, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:34:45 UTC