W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > August 2017

Re: All you need is URL

From: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:51:35 +0200
To: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2EFFE16A-7D7D-4846-89BE-F6D4B4C08589@edrlab.org>
Can we first agree to avoid the term IRI? A status of the IRI work can be found in https://www.w3.org/International/wiki/IRIStatus <https://www.w3.org/International/wiki/IRIStatus> and it shows that IRI, as a project, is dead.

As the HTML 5 spec refers to the WhatWG URL spec, which in practice applies the term URL to the notion of URI (= locators + names), it is true that we should use "URL" is our specs, with a reference to https://url.spec.whatwg.org/ <https://url.spec.whatwg.org/> (1).

But in order to avoid repetitive questions, could we add a note in the section about the identifier metadata, stating that identifiers take the form of a URL (as defined in the spec) but are not necessary dereferencable, with a reference to the "old" notion of URN and a non-normative example using e.g. an ISBN urn? an interesting wording for creating this note can be found in (2)

(1) note the existence of  https://www.w3.org/TR/url/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/url/>, a W3C Note that links to the WhatWG spec but states "Work on this document has been discontinued and it should not be referenced or used as a basis for implementation".
(2) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-1.2.2 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-1.2.2> 

Laurent


> Le 15 août 2017 à 09:25, Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> 
>> On 15 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> We agreed to use the definition in the HTML 5 spec, which is an acceptable normative reference for URL.
> 
> Correct, and the only normative reference in W3C's HTML is the URL Standard by WhatWG:
>   https://www.w3.org/TR/html/references.html#biblio-url <https://www.w3.org/TR/html/references.html#biblio-url>
> 
> 
>> However, there are times where we may want/need a URI or IRI, such as when we need something that isn’t actually a “link” on the web (eg. a namespace).
> 
> That's where I disagree: the URL reference we agreed upon does obsolete URI or IRI, and it isn't just about "link" on the web.
> So when, exactly, would we need to use "URI" or "IRI", except perhaps in an explanatory note alongside the [URL] reference?
> 
>> I don’t recall anyone suggesting a specific use case for URN.
> 
> URNs were mentioned several times in call discussions on IRC.
> 
> My email was to debunk stuff like "URI = URN + URL", or "URN is not a URL", or "URL is only for a “link” on the web", which is untrue with the normative reference we agreed to use.
> 
> Romain.
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 07:52:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:49:06 UTC