Re: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (5)
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
Re: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (5)
Hi Julian, On Dec 15, 2009, at 17:34 , Julian Reschke wrote: Robin Berjon wrote: 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. I think that solving the URL/URI/IRI/whatever else terminology issue for everyone else is not within our mandate (and I think I speak for many when I say we're quite happy about that). Both URL and URI are nowadays in reasonably wide usage in the technical community so I don't think that it matters much if HTML5 uses one and widgets the other. When the IETF, the TAG, or whoever else takes it upon themselves to finally tackle this universally I am sure that we'll be happy to align. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Re: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (5)
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. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
