* Bjoern Hoehrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-18 12:09+0100]
> * 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.
Maybe I misread your intent, in that case. You objected strongly
("certainly not...") without giving any supporting reason. Could
you elaborate on the reasoning behind your objection to "web"?
URIs and IRIs are the way we identify things
(on, in, to and for...) the Web. So "web" to me seems natural. If
the construct is only for identifying a subset of things, then some
other name might be more appropriate. I read you as taking that
latter position.
Dan
