W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Should specifications take sides in the httpRange-14 debate?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:03:15 -0500
Message-ID: <50ACDF23.7060906@openlinksw.com>
To: public-webid@w3.org
On 11/21/12 8:10 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>>
>>
>>     I think there Larry makes a good point with regard to URI/URLs.
>>     Now that we have
>>     agreed to restrict to http/https URI's we should use the URI
>>     term, as that deals
>>     with internationalisation.
>>
>>
>> you mean IRI right? That was also part of Antoine's feedback to 
>> switch from URI to IRI.
>
> We go for what we need. Larry wrote:
>
> "The design proposed is one where there is a WebID protocol element 
> whose value resembles a URL (not a URI? Surely you are not planning on 
> requiring the non-English world to use ASCII WebIDs?) "
>
> It seems that URIs are enough for that problem.

You are being selective again. You use IRI once internationalization is 
a factor, end of story.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen





Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 14:03:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:46 UTC