W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: ISSUE-56: urls-webarch - suggest closing on 2009-09-03

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:56:24 +0200
Message-ID: <4A8E4518.9050304@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Sam Ruby and Dan Connolly asked me to send proposed issue closures in 
> individual emails, with clear subject lines, and Cc'd to the issue 
> originator when possible. Apologies for the spam. If there are no 

BTW: this is not spam.

> objections, I will close this issue on 2009-09-03.
> 
> ------------
> 
> ISSUE-56: urls-webarch - Bring "URLs" section/definition and IRI 
> specification in alignment.
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/56
> 
> My understanding is that HTML5 now completely defers to the Web Address 
> specification, which will shortly be obsoleted by updated definitions 
> IRIbis. All actions related to this issue are closed. Is there any 
> additional concrete action needed to resolve this issue?
> ...

But, as Dan pointed out yesterday in 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1052.html>, it 
still uses the term URL for things that aren't URLs, and states:

"Note: The term "URL" in this specification is used in a manner distinct 
from the precise technical meaning it is given in RFC 3986. Readers 
familiar with that RFC will find it easier to read this specification if 
they pretend the term "URL" as used herein is really called something 
else altogether. This is a willful violation of RFC 3986. [RFC3986]"

This issue hasn't gone away by moving the actual definition somewhere 
else. Furthermore, the reference currently points to an outdated 
document, not IRIbis.

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 06:57:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:51 UTC