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

Re: Fwd: change "URL" to "web address" throughout the HTML 5 spec (Issue-56 urls-webarch)

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:50:51 +0200
To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Media Fragment" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uy1z21s0sr6mfa@worf>
I'd say there's a very slim chance of HTML5 actually changing to another  
terminology and there's really no practical reason why MF should either in  
my opinion.

Philip

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:18:46 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer  
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> Again another interesting email from html5 / public-html.
>
> I think we probably need to discuss our use of the word "URL" or "URI"
> and possibly replace it with "web address".
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:58 AM
> Subject: change "URL" to "web address" throughout the HTML 5 spec
> (Issue-56  urls-webarch)
> To: public-html@w3.org
>
>
> The integration of the [WEBADDRESSES] spec into HTML 5 hasn't
> gone as I expected; the purpose of choosing the term "web address"
> was to replace all occurrences of "URL" by "web address"
> in the HTML 5 spec, not to do this:
>
> "2.5.1 Terminology
> A URL is a string used to identify a resource.
>
> A URL is a valid URL if it is a valid Web address as defined by the Web
> addresses specification. [WEBADDRESSES]
>
> ...
>
> 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]"
>
> -- http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#terminology-0
>
> The choice of terms here doesn't impact interoperability; it's
> an editorial choice. Is there really call for a "willful violation"
> over an editorial choice?
>
> Please take out the "willful violation" note and replace the
> term URL by web address (or another of your choosing;
> "hypertext reference" met with approval of several interested
> people http://esw.w3.org/topic/IETF_HTML5_Meeting_March_2009 ).
>
>
> For reference, the term URL is defined in an IETF standard this way:
>
>   ... The
>   term "Uniform Resource Locator" (URL) refers to the subset of URIs
>   that, in addition to identifying a resource, provide a means of
>   locating the resource by describing its primary access mechanism
>   (e.g., its network "location").
>
>    -- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt
>
> and URIs are defined as absolute URIs, so strings such as
> "../xyz" are not URIs (they're URI references) and hence
> they're not URLs. The definition of "web address" does
> include them, meanwhile.
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Saturday, 22 August 2009 07:51:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:34 GMT