Robin Berjon wrote:
Dear Larry,
thank you for your comments.
On Oct 10, 2009, at 19:44 , Larry Masinter wrote:
5) ** EDITORIAL USE OF URI FOR IRI **
"Throughout this specification, wherever the term URI [URI] is used, it can be
replaced interchangeably with the term IRI [RFC3987]. All widget URIs are IRIs, but the
term URI is more common and was therefore preferred for readability."
Seriously, do we need a W3C Guideline or Finding to cover "DO NOT REDEFINE TERMS"?
There's glory for you! (see http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm ).
Suggestion: Use "IRI" since that's what is meant.
It seems that we seriously need a finding explaining to specification authors
that creating new terms where existing widely used ones can be made to work is
a bad idea that will most likely fail. Most technically savvy people I have
ever met don't know what an IRI is, and of the happy few who do I've seen many
a native English speaker stumble while trying to speak of them orally.
All that is needed for interoperability is for implementers to know that widget URIs are
IRIs, and the document addresses that. Importing the "IRI" term into our space
would have as sole further benefit to import the confusion and tongue-twisting that
surround it.
I recommend that while IRIs are being reinvestigated at the IETF, the naming
issue be addressed.
Meta-comment: this is why I think re-defining things to make things
"less confusing" is the wrong approach.
Please-coordinate with HTML5's Ian Hickson, who thinks that "URL" is the
right term to use, rather than "URI" (here), and the proper terminology.
Best regards, Julian
