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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:19:40 -0700
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Message-id: <72E13519-9172-4425-B68D-F8DADEC71ABC@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Aug 20, 2009, at 11:56 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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.

I feel a little awkward about sending large batches of email at once,  
so that's my little way of updating it.

>
>> 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 outdated document, not IRIbis.

Do you believe the following changes would be appropriate and  
sufficient to resolve the issue, if made:

1) Replace references to WEBADDRESS with references to IRIbis.
2) Replace term URL with something either matching IRIbis or at least  
not conflicting.

If so, then I'll file bugs for these suggested changes. #1 may require  
a sufficiently updated version of IRIbis.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 07:20:26 UTC

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