-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
Described IRIs as "resolved" rather than "absolute". #58
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
@afs, I think this addresses your concern about the mis-use of "absolute IRI", at least within this document. If the general direction seems reasonable, I can replicate to other specifications. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
a yew-are-eye, a yew-are-ell, an eye-are-eye... :-)
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
I can't think of a better name at the moment. For other docs, just "IRI" is reasonable. The syntax parsing step will cover the need to make complete. We can overload text about details and harm readability by always putting in our local terminology. Going back to 3986/3987: I can't find terminology for:
with
but none of the other |
Co-authored-by: Andy Seaborne <[email protected]>
For #15.
Preview | Diff