W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Updates to File API

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 22:53:58 +0100
Message-ID: <4BF5AF76.6090707@webr3.org>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: arun@mozilla.com, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>>> 3. The renaming of the property to 'url' also suggests that we should
>>>> cease to consider an urn:uuid scheme.
>>>>
>>> I'm not sure that one follows from the other. The property's called 'url'
>>> because that's what will be familiar to authors, but the magic string that
>>> goes inside of it could still be a URN.

FWIW, I'm a developer and sticking a URN in a .url property really 
doesn't seem familiar at all - even a '.id' property with an id that was 
consistently generated would be much better.

If the scope of the identifiers is limited to a single ua, on a single 
machine, and specific to that single ua (as in I can't expect to request 
the identifier outside of the ua that provided it on x machine and get 
the same results) then I (personally) can't see why there's a need for 
anything more than a simple unique identifier (sha1 or suchlike)

And if the above is true, then surely this would negate the need for 
.url, registering a new URI scheme, or URN namespace - and all in save 
you all from lots of headaches & time wasted, close the issue, and save 
the developer community from years of further confusion (or should i say 
conflated understanding of what a URL is), and benefit the entire web by 
saving us from yet another (predominantly unneeded) URN namespace or URL 
scheme.

Best & leave this in your capable hands.

Nathan
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 21:55:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT