On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:08 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Comment from the i18n review of: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/ > > Comment 2 > At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets-pc/ > Editorial/substantive: E > Tracked by: AP > > Location in reviewed document: > Section 8.3 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/#attribute-types] > > Comment: > Section 8.3 (Attribute Types) contains a subsection called "URI Attribute" > which is relevant to our comment above. It says: > > -- > > An attribute defined as containing a valid URI. A valid URI is one that > matches the URI token of the [URI] specification or the IRI token of the > [RFC3987] specification. The value of this kind of attribute is retrieved > using the rule for getting a single attribute value. -- > > This is problematical, since all URIs are IRIs, but not the converse. We > think this should favor IRI and note the relationship to URI. >
Ok, this a minor editorial change (applied globally). I made it really simple: [[ IRI attribute An attribute defined as containing a valid IRI. A valid IRI is one that matches the IRI token of the [RFC3987] specification. ]] I think most people know that IRI are a super-set of URIs, so I did not point out the difference. Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
