W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > June 2008

Re: URIs in HTML5 and issues arising

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:42:56 -0400
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: public-html-request@w3.org, uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF58501D4D.23036953-ON85257478.0050A930-85257478.005BD28E@us.ibm.com>

public-html-request@w3.org wrote on 06/29/2008 05:20:03 PM:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > > Fair enough.  Use "HTML URL" a few times, then, particularly in the

> > > > context of the definition of validity.
> > >
> > > It was pointed out that "HTML URL" would also be misleading, since
> > > there are already spec writers looking to use these definitions
> > > elsewhere.
> >
> > Not sure why this means it can't be called "HTML URL".
> Because it would be even more confusing to have non-HTML specs talk about

> their URLs being HTML URLs.

I'm not sure I see that, but I will say that use on the unqualified term
"URL" will be confusing.  A concrete example: the RSS 2.0 specs use the
term "URL" (and in the case of documenting the enclosure element, "http
url", though in the latter case I assume that that means a uri with a
scheme of 'http'.

If I understand correctly, HTML5 will allow the following in content, and
will expect that all comformant HTML5 consumers will be able to process it

  <a href="http://www.?姆斯.com/">James Holderness</a>

It is not currently the case that RSS 2.0 allows the following in content,
and it most assuredly is not the case that conformant RSS 2.0 comsumers
process it interoperably:

  <enclosure url="http://www.?姆斯.com/atomtests/iri/?.mp3"/>

Question: is there a change to the HTML5 spec which could reduce this
confusion?  Alternately, would it be possible to work with Harvard and/or
the RSS Advisory review board to reduced confusion?

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 16:47:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:12 UTC