- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:05:23 -0700
- To: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
On Aug 16, 2007, at 7:19 AM, Ben Boyle wrote: > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#interfaces > > I would like to see URI attribute names matching the names given those > components in the URI spec: > http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html#components > > protocol -> scheme > userInformation (new) > hostname -> host > port (no change) > host -> authority (includes userInformation in addition to host:port) > pathname -> path > search -> query > hash -> fragment > > I've no idea where the terms in the HTML5 draft come from (if they > come from a meaningful source, a reference to that would be useful). I agree with you that the new names would be better in theory. However, the existing names are already widely implemented in browsers on HTMLAnchorElement and Location, and have been for a long time. These URL component attributes are pretty rarely used; location.search and location.hash are probably the only ones with really significant use. The question is whether duplicates with better names add enough to be worth it. I think the answer is probably no. > I don't mind if there are duplicates e.g. if "search" and "query" are > both attributes and mean the same. Unfortunately "host" will be a > problem. > > Is there a legacy issue with implementations already using this > terminology? I suspect there is. Bingo. I'm not sure whether Netscape or Microsoft invented it first, but the rest of us have copied. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 16:05:34 UTC