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

Re: All you need is URL

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:56:13 +0200
Cc: Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <31A6F3D3-2BE6-4FD1-A2F6-6263B0056202@w3.org>
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>

> On 15 Aug 2017, at 13:49, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:
> 
> 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”.

This is a problematic issue indeed, but I would propose to leave this to those who make these decisions. If the HTML spec can have a reference to this document (based on all kinds of special discussion on the matter) then we can certainly follow suit. (We can have that issue discussed with the Director later.)

Ivan


>  
> Leonard
>  
> From: Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com <mailto:rdeltour@gmail.com>>
> Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 3:25 AM
> To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>
> Cc: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org <mailto: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:
>   https://www.w3.org/TR/html/references.html#biblio-url <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fhtml%2Freferences.html%23biblio-url&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc406e51eb66a438a331a08d4e3aec7d7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636383787205622453&sdata=7kLP9XAC6Cs8EpJrzl9tsFrWG8JzgR8qs15KXN%2FbcP0%3D&reserved=0>
>  
>  
>> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 11:56:22 UTC

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