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

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/