W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: [fileapi] urn -> URL

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:13:18 +0100
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u29vsgd164w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook.local>
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:45:30 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> I don't see a reason why we should call the member urn. URL is much  
>> more consistent with other parts of the Web platform and works just as  
>> well. I thought we agreed on this previously so I'm just mentioning it  
>> here since it seems to have changed again.
>
> "URN" seems to be fine as long the identifier actually *is* a URN (which  
> it currently is).
>
> That being said, and as mentioned before, I'm still not convinced that  
> the spec needs to recommend a specific URI scheme. We have talked about  
> that before; is there something in the mailing list archives that  
> actually summarizes why this is needed?
>
> Finally, *at this time* (while it *is* a URN) renaming to "URL" would be  
> inconsistent with the relevant base specs, and produce even more  
> confusion. The right thing to do here is to stay consistent with WebArch  
> and RFC 3986, thus fix the terminology in HTML5.

It would however be consistent with WebSocket.URL, <input type="url">,  
url("image"), EventSource.URL, HTMLDocument.URL, etc. Keeping the  
author-facing APIs the same would be a good thing IMO.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 08:14:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT