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

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

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:11:06 +0100
Cc: public-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <197F5C56-DEB0-48D1-A943-C1E794E3F2DD@bblfish.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

On 21 Nov 2012, at 15:03, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> 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. 

Larry Masinter was being selective. Why was he? I am sure he knows of IRIs too.

If you want IRIs please open an issue for it.

Henry

> 
> -- 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/


Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 14:11:46 UTC

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