+1 to the "just pick something and ship it" position
On Mar 18, 2005, at 2:44 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
* 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
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
