W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2008

RE: the "HTML URL" issue, was: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea

From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:55:31 -0400
To: "'Stefan Eissing'" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "'Henrik Nordstrom'" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <04fb01c8e102$4925b010$db711030$@com>

> > The other issue that got a lot of discussion is whether the things
> > used in HTML should be called "URL", when in reality they are
> > something else.
> 
> Calling them HREFs (even though they also appear in other attributes)
> would give everyone the right context (HTML) and topic (URLs) without
> the confusion of redefining existing terms.

Having nearly identical concepts is the root of this problem, not the nearly
identical names (although that does not help either). There is no need to
have a different spec for URI, IRI, and "HTTP URL", "URL reference", "HREF"
(or whatever this mystery spec is being called). There should be *one* spec
for resource locations. Period.

Besides, defining resource locators is outside the domain of HTML as far as
I am concerned.

J.Ja
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 13:56:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:19 GMT