* Bjoern Hoehrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-18 11:13+0100] > > * Tim Bray wrote: > >There are a couple of places where we use "uri" in the markup, > >specifically the "atom:uri" element (3.2.2) and the "uri" attribute of > >"atom:generator" (4.2.5). > > > >In both cases they're not actually URIs, they're IRIs, so the name is > >WRONG, except for nobody knows what an IRI is so renaming them "iri" > >would be confusing, and anyhow everyone thinks of URLs not *RIs, but > >naming them "url" would be wrong too, so why don't we actually change > >them to say what they're there for not what their syntax is and use > >"web" in both cases? -Tim > > We can call those "at" or "about" or "internet" but certainly not "web".
While we're at it, we can relive 10-15 years of URN vs URI debates on the Atom list instead of shipping product. Are you appealing to some notion of 'online' versus 'offline' resource? A spec could be cited from the formal Atom spec? Such distinctions are notoriously hard to maintain... If you want to add an implicit (and imho illadviced) notion of 'URI dereferencability' into the spec, it'd be good to see candidate text for inclusion, rather than doing it via attribute/element name choice. Note that the deferencability of identifiers changes over time, as infrastructure is deployed (or rots away); eg. DOIs, gopher:, java: URIs... Dan
