On Thu, 26 May 2005 17:13:22 +0200, Eric Scheid
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
See http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13864.html
There are two arguments in parallel here:
(1) which is the proper term for a url/uri/iri ?
(2) is naming an element after the data type sensible ?
I say the first argument is a red herring, a bike shed, and entirely
redundant as we've already extensively used "IRI" in the spec.
Consider also:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13860.html
We have /author/name and not /author/string for a reason. Why then do we
have /author/uri?
I guess we won't be nuking the atom:uri element before Atom goes gold?
I've created a Pace just to have a final stab at it, if it's possible to
do anything about it:
<http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceRenameUriElement>
== Abstract ==
The "atom:uri" element should be renamed or changed.
== Author ==
AsbjornUlsberg
== Status ==
Open.
== Rationale ==
The "atom:uri" element says nothing about its semantics or meaning, just
about the datatype of its content. As
[http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13860.html Danny Ayers
writes]: "Using atom:uri/atom:iri is only marginally better than saying
atom:string - it describes how the identifier is put together, it tells
you nothing about what's being identified.". It is also in conflict with
the term "IRI" which is the one used in the rest of the specification.
== Proposal ==
Rename the "atom:uri" element or change its type to a Link Construct.
== Impacts ==
Atom parsers which expects "atom:uri" in the documents, although they are
based on a non-standard nor final version of the Atom document format.
== Notes ==
As this change is mostly editorial and not technical, I think the authors
are free to find the best suited name for the element.
--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
