IRI Terminology

[gkellogg]

For #15.

---

Preview | Diff

[afs]

Do not suggest in any way that the WG may change core terminology to URL without the WG having agreed to that being said.

[afs]

There is no mention of "adopt the pertinent core of RFC3987".

[gkellogg]

Do not suggest in any way that the WG may change core terminology to URL without the WG having agreed to that being said.

In re-creating the PR, this seems to have lost the more neutral text change you previously requested, I'll update.

[gkellogg]

Closing in light of Martin's comment #15 (comment).

[gkellogg]

@rdfguy, @ktk: in spite of the procedural issues about appropriate work items, I think this PR should be merged, as the existing text is now inappropriate.

Note that this PR simply updates the issue marker to clarify that the open work item is on erratum 29 Terminology about IRIs not on the suitability of using RFC3987.

[afs]

Relates to #21.

[gkellogg]

It's worse to leave this PR unmerged than to keep the status quo, so merging.