- From: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:36:26 +0200
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>After thinking about it. Having |type="url"| instead of |type="uri"| or >>|type="iri"| might not be so bad. > > type="url" will get me lynched by standards purists. > type="iri" will get me lynched by confused authors. > type="uri" is a compromise. I think pretty much anybody that could use the feature has some idea what "url" means. They don't know that "mailto:user at domain.com" isn't url but that doesn't matter a little bit. I'd rather take "iri" as it clearly defines how the identifier should be encoded (urlencode()d UTF-8 string). Using "uri" as a compromise results to confused authors (who don't regognise the abbreviation) and confused purists (who cannot agree on encoding as uri spec doesn't define one, AFAIR). -- Mikko
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 07:36:26 UTC