- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:29:36 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8116
Larry Masinter <lmm@acm.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |lmm@acm.org
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX |
--- Comment #3 from Larry Masinter <lmm@acm.org> 2010-03-18 17:29:36 ---
Note that change proposal
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0882.html for ISSUE-56
(http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/56) at least explains that this
specification uses "URL" in ways different than the rest of the web community
(and also, by using URL for relative forms) in ways that are not even common in
the public literature.
Note also that the IETF document draft-ietf-iri-3987bis
(http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis/) contains advice about
using "URL" in formal documents, and there is a bug report
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/9 which discusses that issue.
Since the response to this bug was "We (the standards community) really need to
give up on this naming nonsense and just go back to URL, which is what everyone
else calls them.", it would seem appropriate get the standards community to
follow that advice.
See also
http://masinter.blogspot.com/2010/03/resources-are-angels-urls-are-pins.html
for some history.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2010 17:29:38 UTC