- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 17:20:03 -0600
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
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
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 23:20:11 UTC