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

Re: heads-up about "new" URLs section in HTML5 editor's draft

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:19:40 +0200
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.udf6m01v64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:06:14 +0200, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
> Somebody suggested "HTML URL" on uri@w3.org - I think that's a better
> option because its makes the distinction more apparent.

Since I'd expect, e.g. XMLHttpRequest and other specifications to adopt  
this URL definition as well, "HTML URL" is somewhat strange. Given the  
note in the specification I think URL is fine and consistent with e.g.  
<input type=url>, url(), and toDataURL().


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 28 June 2008 07:20:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:18 GMT