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

Re: All you need is URL

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:49:36 +0000
To: Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com>
CC: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <020C8E7B-B248-45F2-A154-11C6D7CF6C98@adobe.com>
The problem with using the WhatWG spec is in its definition - “a continually updated specification” (and therefore *not* a standard!).  This is going to be especially true as we consider our archival requirements and the need to have a standard that can be referenced “in perpetuity”.


From: Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 3:25 AM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: All you need is URL

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:

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.


Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 11:50:07 UTC

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