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: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:30:47 +0300
Cc: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>, 'Smylers' <Smylers@stripey.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D24B0CA1-993C-4E7B-B580-A1F79F84A1CD@robburns.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

HI Julian,

On Jun 29, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> I posit that this use case is irrelevantly small; it only seems to  
>> apply to
>> people attempting to write applications that implement a particular  
>> spec, or
>> maybe people writing an "URIBuilder" type library component or  
>> something.
>
> It affects anybody who consumes HTML. The fact that HTML5-URLs are  
> something different means that you can't use out of the box URI/IRI  
> libraries and reminding readers of this spec by *not* using the term  
> URL would be helpful.

I still haven't seen a use case or problem statement for why HTML5  
cannot use the existing URL/URI/IRI specifications. It would be a  
poor  design decision to diverge from the existing specification son  
that without a clear problem statement as to why we need to do so.  
Specifying document conformance criteria for URLs, URIs, and IRIs  
along with HTML5 UA conformance for handling and error recovery do not  
constitute a change in the existing definitions. If we require such a  
divergence from existing definitions, what problem are we trying to  
address? What use cases cannot be met by the existing specifications?  
So it seems very premature to be searching for a new term or word for  
a definition that we have not yet developed the need for.


Take care,
Rob
Received on Sunday, 29 June 2008 09:31:27 GMT

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