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

Re: Confusing use of "URI" to refer to IRIs, and IRI handling in the DOM

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:05:53 +0100
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080629090553.GN9970@stripey.com>

Charles McCathieNevile writes:

> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:40:47 +0200, Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Brian Smith writes:
> >
> > > When somebody sees "URL" they think "Hey, I already know what a
> > > URL is."
> >
> > Indeed, most people will.
> >
> > But most people's concept of precisely what constitutes a URL is
> > pretty fuzzy.  It isn't clear that what they think of on reading
> > "URL" matches the existing definition but not the HTML 5 one.  The
> > nuances between those definitions probably don't even register with
> > many people, meaning that the change doesn't affect them: their
> > general idea of what a URL is matches the HTML 5 definition just as
> > closely as it does the original.
> >
> > And I'd've thought that for many people "URL" simply means "the
> > internet address you can type in a web browser" (since this is by
> > far the most common situation in which people encounter URLs) -- in
> > which case, their beliefs about what a URL is comes from browser
> > behaviour, not a spec.  For these people the HTML 5 definition is
> > actually an improvement, since it will result in the spec matching
> > their existing beliefs!
> 
> In which case, why not use a term that doesn't have a precise
> definition, but is well understood in general, like "web address" ?

"Web address" works for me.

I think on the URI list thread (that was pointed to by the W3C blog) Ian
mentioned that an IRC conversation had suggested "address" is just as
problematic as "URL".

Smylers
Received on Sunday, 29 June 2008 09:06:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:55 UTC