- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:24:51 -0500
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Fri, 2004-04-02 at 16:25, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: [...] > No guessing here, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/>: [...] > [...] > The World Wide Web (WWW, or simply Web) is an information space in > which the items of interest, referred to as resources, are identified > by global identifiers called Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs). > [...] > > This is a definition of "Web" that clearly excludes IRIs, isn't it? > I really don't mind this by the way, URIs are a way too complex and > confusing topic even for experts, adding yet an additional layer of > complexity (IRIs) is a bad idea. IRIs should be called URIs and the > IRI specification should obsolete the URI specification, that'd be > way more useful for the community (which in cases like > http://tidy.sf.net/bug/924809 thinks this has happend already). Yes, your point is well made, and that's an appealling approach to the IRIEverywhere-27 issue. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#IRIEverywhere-27 There are lots of specification synchronization hassles... for example, advancement of webarch is pending on the RFC2396bis internet drafts stabilizing as an RFC, and I think the target status is IETF Draft Standard, i.e. a specification of stuff that's already deployed in an interoperable fashion. A URI spec that has non-ascii characters wouldn't be a drop-in replacement for things like HTTP 1.1 and probably various other IETF specs. I suppose the impact on W3C specs like HTML and XML and so on would be pretty small. Maybe the synchronization hassles are dominated by the overall benefit. I dunno. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 17:24:42 UTC