[whatwg] Use IRI instead of URI

Anne van Kesteren fora at annevankesteren.nl
Mon Feb 7 07:03:17 PST 2005

Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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.

2.5. Extensions to existing attributes

Under 'maxlength': "Valid URIs and e-mail addresses in particular can
often be surprisingly long."

I guess that should be IRI since it refers to the value |type="uri"| can

2.12. The datalist element and the list attribute

It could be that the UA has listed some IRIs as well though I may be
nitpicking here.

2.16. Extensions to the form element

Not sure about this. If it is an empty string, should it really be
relative to the base URI? I can remember a discussion in Bugzilla about
same-document references where there still isn't a conclusion about
this. (Among other things with regard to this.)

Or does this update the RFC in question?

6.1. Filling select elements

Why URI or IRI? IRI covers both. Same for other sections where this is
used. (See for another example 6.2.)

A. XHTML module definition

A lot of attribute can only contain URIs where it would make sense to
allow IRIs.

>> 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 
> missed?

I was wondering why you were pointing to RFC1738 as well as pointing to
RFC3986. However, as you explained on IRC RFC3986 only updates the
specification it does not obsolete it.

  Anne van Kesteren

More information about the whatwg mailing list