Re: IRI versus URI terminology

At 06:42 PM 6/6/2006 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>Hearing no negative feedback, I went ahead and changed the parameter names 
>to 'namespaceIRI', 'fileIRI', and 'iri'.  See #3, #4, #5 below.

I want to backpedal slightly.  I was thinking that all changes were only 
changes to terminology, or to the spec's names for parameters, in such a 
way that no existing implementations or tests would be affected.

But that's not quite true, there is one exception  For #5, the 'uri' would 
actually appear in XCF content, as in:
     <linkuri uri="http://example.org/" ...>.

So changing 'uri' to 'iri' would affect existing implementations, cascaded 
profiles, and tests.  Given that we have already decided to leave 'linkuri' 
alone, throughout the document, for reasons of its 8-year legacy, it 
actually makes sense to leave 'uri' as is.  (The description still makes 
clear that the value of the parameter is the IRI.)

So I propose that it should be 'uri' (in other words, undo this bit of 
yesterday's changes).

Comments?

-Lofton.



>At 12:08 PM 6/3/2006 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>I have made changes [1] -- more or less as proposed in the below copied 
>>email.  Have a look especially at 3.1.1.1, revised to have some strong 
>>similarities to current SVG Tiny 1.2 wording.
>>
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor/
>>
>>Questions/comments:
>>
>>1.) 3.1.1.4 is the trickiest part, because IRI and URI both enter into 
>>the equation.  Does it look okay?
>>
>>2.) I changed the text usage "namespace URI" to "namespace IRI".  Is that 
>>correct?  (I.e., "Namespaces in XML" does allow IRI?)
>>
>>3.) However in Ch.5, for this draft, I left the name of the new DOM 
>>"namespaceURI" parameter alone wherever it occurred, until I check with 
>>the WG.  I can think of no reason that changing the DOM parameter name 
>>would have an impact.  RECOMMENDATION: change 'namespaceURI' to 
>>'namespaceIRI' in DOM chapter and ECMAScript chapter.
>>
>>4.) Same for the new DOM 'fileURI' parameter in Ch.5.
>>
>>5.) 4.3.8:  Similarly I left the name of the new XCF 'uri' parameter 
>>alone in Ch.4.  Again, I guess there is no reason that changing the 
>>parameter's name would cause a problem.  As long as we change the DTD 
>>accordingly, then it should have no impact on implementations that 
>>currently work, right?  (Actually, those implementations would continue 
>>to work anyway -- there is no semantic content in the parameter 
>>name!)  RECOMMENDATION:  change 'uri' parameter to 'iri' in XCF chapter 
>>and external complete DTD.
>>
>>6.) However, I decided to leave the 8-year-old 'linkuri' ApsAttr name as 
>>is, because of heavy legacy usage and familiarity.
>>
>>7.) Note the change to the description change of 'uri' in 4.3.8.  Was: 
>>"The href of this 'linkuri' attribute".  Now is: "The IRI of this 
>>'linkuri' attribute."  I don't think the description was very good as it was.
>>
>>I'd like your feedback.  If any further changes, such as #3, 4, 5 above, 
>>then I'll do them next week for the LC text.
>>
>>-Lofton.
>>
>>
>>At 05:20 PM 5/31/2006 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Chris,
>>>
>>>I have the action item to fix the terminology, by changing "URI" to 
>>>"IRI" where appropriate -- unfinished Boeing item #24 [0].
>>>
>>>[0] 
>>>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/20060528/proposed-changes-boeing/proposed-changes-boeing#Proposed-24
>>>
>>>I'm thinking that some material like [2] & [3] from Tiny 1.2 ought to go 
>>>into WebCGM section 3.1 [1], and/or into a new informative discussion 
>>>section of Chapter 2.  Your thoughts about that?
>>>
>>>I find "URI" 105 places in the WebCGM 2.0 (Submission) spec.  I'm 
>>>thinking the following general guidelines should get it right in most places:
>>>
>>>a.) Most "URI" in the document should be changed to "IRI", except most 
>>>of those in 3.1.1.4 should remain "URI".  Any exceptions to this?
>>>
>>>b.) What about the commonly used phrase, "URI fragment" or "URI fragment 
>>>syntax"?  (Which refers to 3986 "fragment identifiers", applied to the 
>>>WebCGM fragment per the rules of 3.1).  Is it correct to change these to 
>>>"IRI fragment"?  I looked again at 3986 and 3987 and the answer isn't 
>>>completely obvious to me.  However, Tiny 1.2 seems to do it that way [2], [3].
>>>
>>>c.) namespace URI?  (Occurrences in ch.4 and ch.5).  I assume that gets 
>>>changed to "namespace IRI"?
>>>
>>>You advice is appreciated.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>-Lofton.
>>>
>>>[1] 
>>>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/20060528/proposed-changes-boeing/WebCGM20-IC#webcgm_3_1
>>>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/linking.html#HeadOverview
>>>[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/linking.html#IRIandURI
>>>
>>>