- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:51:31 +0100
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:41:30 +0100, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > That makes sense... I think the connections to HTML 5 are mostly > there to make it easy on reviewers who are familiar with the URL > material in the HTML 5 draft; I don't think there's any lasting > need for them. > > Any suggestions for the title? maybe something like: > > "Web Addresses: markup conventions for URIs and IRIs" Just "Web Addresses" would be fine. I personally don't classify XMLHttpRequest and CSS as markup. I'd expect other APIs that might be splitted from HTML5 to use this terminology as well and they would not be markup either. Alternatively you could do s/markup/Web/ but I don't think everyone would appreciate the implication. I have to say I much preferred just using URL though. Most authors are familiar with that and know what it means. And the few that now the distinction and the old meaning can read the fine print in the specification. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 14:52:32 UTC