- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:37:05 +0900
- To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- CC: uri@w3.org
Frank Ellermann さんは書きました: > Felix Sasaki wrote: > > >> See a similar problem and a solution for the usage of the >> terms "URI" and "IRI" mentioned at >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Jun/0110.html >> > > Intentionally munging IRI and URI is bad for URI consumers > with no clue what to do with an IRI. The <ihost> part is > not trivial. Even the XML 1 spec. got it wrong, ending up > with percent-encoded gibberish for a <host>. This breaks > existing software expecting *real* URIs, not IRIs. > the above link points to an approach of not munging IRI and URI, but making the difference clear. I agree with you looking into IETF specs only there is no need for that, but different communities have established different terminology. See also Henry's mail, though I would not see the difference only between W3C / IETF versus the Web community, there are many other communities interested in identifiers, and often the terminology is a mess. Felix > >>> Most people seem to understand the intent, as far as I >>> know you're the only person whom this has confused. >>> > > Clearly I don't like any "embrace, extend and extinguish", > RFC 3987 doesn't "update" 3986. That HTML5 allows IRIs is > a major step, not some minor point. URL = IRI is newspeak. > Why not use the term IRI for IRIs, if that's what it is ? > > IRIs are cute for software supporting them. But authors > reading the HTML5 memo need to be aware that this is not > everywhere the case. Starting with the W3C validator as > popular "legacy" software. > > Frank > > >
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 08:38:01 UTC