- From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:28:21 +0200
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
>> We're not going to change the name, because <iri> is a stupid name >> that nobody outside some rarified standards circles ever uses. The > > Well. Our specs are made FOR those rarified standards circles only. Well, that's also not true. Many people outside of these circles (like me) also read the specs, i.e. they should be understandable for everyone. So in this point I can understand Tab when he doesn't want to that replacement, because nobody heard about IRI but everyone knows what a URL is. Of course technically spoken the token <url> is plainly wrong, because it just covers a part of what is actually allowed. > On another note, "replace the <url> definition by <iri> throughout the > specs" could be painful because we use <url> is many different modules, > some of them having reached CR status. And of course we also have the well-established function url(), which can't be changed to iri() anymore. So I guess the only thing that can be done is to adjust the definition at least. Furthermore I agree with Tab that that the SVG spec and the CSS specs definition and denotations should be conform. Sebastian
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 07:28:50 UTC