Re: ACTION-79 discussion on URI vs. IRI in the specs

I agree with your proposal. For RDFa 1.1 the situation is then fully clear. Ome readers may have had some doubts on the previous version of RDFa (following your links) but that only means that for those readers, so to say, RDFa accepts more than before.

So +1 from me.

Thanks!

Ivan

----
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net



On 26 May 2011, at 05:46, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:

> I had an action item to "update spec to talk about IRIs when we really mean IRIs".  I have completed my review of RDFa Core and RDFa Syntax to ensure that we don't introduce any backward incompatibilities.... and now I am thoroughly confused.  Follow me here:
> RDFa Syntax clearly says that an expanded CURIE is a syntactically valid IRI.
> RDFa Syntax also includes by reference the XHTML Modularization datatype URI for use in various attributes.
> XHTML M12N defines the datatype URI as "A Uniform Resource Identifier Reference, as defined by the type anyURI in XMLSCHEMA."
> The XML Schema anyURI type in the current Recommendation is a URI as defined in RFC 2396 as amended by RFC 2732.  This definition DOES NOT include IRIs.
> However, the lastest XML Schema Working Draft (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-xmlschema11-2-20091203/#anyURI) defines anyURI to be an IRI.  This was the *intent* of the XHTML Working Group at the time of the publication of the final XHTML Modularization (Stephen, please correct me if I am wrong).  However, the XML Schema spec is taking a while to get out the door.
> Consequently, I posit that the *intent* of XHTML Modularization, and therefore of RDFa Syntax, was that whenever we said URI we really mean IRI.
> Independently, we recently had a discussion about whether the lexical space of a CURIE should be an IRI or not.  The group agreed that it should.  I was assigned this action item.  Unfortunately, the specs are riddled with uses of the term URI.  And I believe that in EVERY SINGLE CASE we mean IRI (as in RFC3987).  I think that it would be confusing for our readers to use the term IRI everywhere.  People just don't know what that is, and it would steepen our learning curve.  Therefore, I propose the following:
> In the 1 location where we reference RFC3987, we use the term IRI: "When expanded, the resulting URI MUST be a syntactically valid IRI [RFC3987]. For a more detailed explanation see CURIE and URI Processing. The lexical space of a CURIE is as defined in curie below. The value space is the set of IRIs.".
> In the 1 location where we reference RFC3986, we change the reference to RFC3987: "Since RDFa is ultimately a means for transporting RDF, a key concept is the resource and its manifestation as a URI. RDF deals with complete URIs (not relative paths); when converting RDFa to triples, any relative URIs must be resolved relative to the base URI, using the algorithm defined in section 6.5 of RFC 3987 [RFC3987], Relative IRI References."
> We add another note in section 2 that says something like "The term 'URI' is used throughout this specification.  However, the term is used in its generic sense.  The actual value space of URIs is that of the set of IRIs as defined in [RFC3987]."  We could even include an informatve reference to the XML Schema 1.1 draft where anyURI is mapped this way if people think that would help.
> In this way we ensure that the only normative reference about IRIs is to the IRI spec, but retain the readability and approachability of the specification.
> 
> I am open to other suggestions, but I think this is the easiest thing to implement and the thing that will be most consistent and comprehensible for our readers.
> -- 
> Shane McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
> +1 763 786 8160 x120