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

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

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:19:43 +0100
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
CC: Philip Jšgenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C6B6D64F.7A4F%michael.hausenblas@deri.org>

> So, if we want to be correct, we should use "URI reference" everywhere.

+1

And *please* let us not start doing the 'HTML5/WHATWG dance' here. A serious
reason for me to quit the MF WG work, quite frankly.

Cheers,
      Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:30:30 +1000
> To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
> Cc: Philip Jšgenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Media Fragment
> <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Fwd: change "URL" to "web address" throughout the HTML 5 spec
> (Issue-56 urls-webarch)
> Resent-From: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 02:31:28 +0000
> 
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 7:26 AM, RaphaŽl Troncy<Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl> wrote:
>>> The term URI doesn't seem to include relative references according to
>>> what I forwarded. So, the creation of web addresses such as
>>> "../test/video.ogv#t=12.50" is not covered when using the term URI.
>>> This was what triggered my email.
>> 
>> I'm not sure I understand the issue :-(
>> Do you claim that: ./resource.txt#frag01 is *not* a valid URI?
> 
> Yes, it's a valid URI reference, but not a valid URI.
> 
>> It is according to Wikipedia,
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Identifier#Examples_of_URI_refe
>> rences
> 
> Not quite.
> 
> According to the standard, URIs and URI references are not the same,
> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Identifier#URI_reference
> (also states "protocol documents should not allow for ambiguity").
> 
> When we talk about fragments, we actually always talk about URI
> references. "In order to derive a URI from a URI reference, software
> converts the URI reference to "absolute" form by merging it with an
> absolute "base" URI according to a fixed algorithm." Take a look at
> the standard to see the difference:
> http://labs.apache.org/webarch/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html#uri-reference .
> 
> So, if we want to be correct, we should use "URI reference" everywhere.
> 
> Silvia.
> 
Received on Sunday, 23 August 2009 10:20:27 GMT

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