* Dan Brickley wrote: >> >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...
I do not really understand what you are trying to ask or say here. I suppose you object to call those elements and attributes anything but "web" for some reason or you object to the alternate names I suggested. In case of the latter you seem to somehow think that at/about/internet suggests what you call "dereferencability" while "web" does not. That would not make much sense to me, so I fail to get your point. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
