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

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/>