[whatwg] Use IRI instead of URI
ian at hixie.ch
Fri Feb 4 07:16:19 PST 2005
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > >
> > > Since IRI is now a RFC, shouldn't Web Forms use that term instead of
> > > URI?
> > >
> > > (For example, in section 2.12. I guess once UAs start supporting
> > > IRIs you want a list of IRIs there, not just URIs.)
> > I've already updated all the cases that really matter. For the most
> > part I'd like to just stick to calling things URIs since otherwise
> > people will just get more and more confused (most people still think
> > they're URLs...).
> Does that matter for a specification?
> If you do it, you might want to add a line somewhere that URI and IRI
> are used interchangeable.
Hm, could do.
Actually, I just went through the entire spec and made sure that every
reference to URI is correct and every reference to IRI is correct. Let me
know if you spot any cases that say URI when they should said IRI. I think
they are all now correct, though.
(Also, if someone could look through section "5.6. Submitting the encoded
form data set" and tell me which of the table cells in there aren't clear
from a conformance point of view, that would be great. I can't see the
wood for the trees in that section anymore.)
> Also, I think WF2 should refer to RFC3986 instead of RFC1738 since the
> former updates the latter. RFC3986 is an internet standard and obsoletes
> various other documents as well.
I'd updated all the relevant reference, I think. Did you see some I
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg