- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:03:09 +0100
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Cc: Daniel Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: >> Sure, but given the precedent of url(), type=url, document.URL, >> WebSocket.url, EventSource.url, new URL(), ... URI is just the wrong >> term for web-exposed names. > > I feel like you're picking a choosing your examples. As a counter > example, document.documentURI uses the term "URI". Sure, but document.URL is identical. There's also namespaceURI, but namespaces are mostly ignored. > Look, I understand that this is a point of disagreement between you > and the IETF. Come on Adam. You have that disagreement with them as much as I do. But that disagreement is not about terminology, it's about what parsers of browsers do. The IETF is fine with us using the term URL for the aforementioned APIs. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 17:03:36 UTC