Anne van Kesteren wrote:
EDITORIAL:
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
May I suggest HREF? It's address format and class agnostic.
Graham
On Mar 23, 2005, at 8:07 AM, Graham wrote:
May I suggest HREF? It's address format and class agnostic.
If I hadn't firmly promised myself that I would keep my damn mouth shut
about this, I'd be +1. -Tim
Hello Dan,
The problem I have with using web is that there is a pars pro
toto (or probably rather the other way) problem here. I.e.
the Web is defined by *all* the resources identified by an URI/IRI,
whereas the element we are trying to name points to just one of
them.
Given all the proposals, my
Martin Duerst wrote:
url: -0.2 (outdated)
It may be outdated, but it is the one everyone is using and it is also
used by CSS.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Mark Nottingham wrote:
+1 to the just pick something and ship it position
Indeed. Could it possibly matter less? We have more important things to
talk about.
For web:
Bray, Sayre, Duerst, Brickley
For iri:
de hÓra, Höhrmann
For uri:
Gregorio, van Kesteren
Robert Sayre
+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
* Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-17 16:27-0800]
EDITORIAL:
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
* 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
* 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,
* 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
On Friday, March 18, 2005, at 04:24 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
URIs and IRIs are the way we identify things
(on, in, to and for...) the Web. So web to me seems natural.
I think the question is which of these is meant by the web:
a) HTML over HTTP(S), plus images and other things that get rendered in
Dan Brickley wrote:
* Bjoern Hoehrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-18 12:09+0100]
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
* Antone Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-18 08:41-0700]
On Friday, March 18, 2005, at 04:24 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
URIs and IRIs are the way we identify things
(on, in, to and for...) the Web. So web to me seems natural.
I think the question is which of these is meant by the web:
* Dan Brickley wrote:
I think the question is which of these is meant by the web:
I encourage Atom to follow the WebArch REC, let's call it (d),
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#intro
[[
The World Wide Web (WWW, or simply Web) is an information space in which
the items of interest, referred to as
Friday, March 18, 2005, 7:08:32 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
uri -- wrong
iri -- unknown to many users
web -- misleading to many users
I suggest confronting users with something unknown is better than
misleading them.
How about something with less meaning attached to it, such as
EDITORIAL:
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
Tim Bray wrote:
EDITORIAL:
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,
Keeping the name atom:uri is exactly
Tim Bray wrote:
EDITORIAL:
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
Tim Bray wrote:
EDITORIAL:
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
