[Bug 8116] URNs are URIs but not URLs


Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX

--- Comment #2 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>  2009-12-08 16:47:48 ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: The term "URL" is hyperlinked to a definition that includes urn:

Anyway, some people are suggesting that urn: can be used for resources that can
be located (e.g. in the File API), so it's clear that that scheme _can_ be
locatable. So I don't think it's even wrong per the latest changes to the
meaning of URI/URN/IRI.

We (the standards community) really need to give up on this naming nonsense and
just go back to URL, which is what everyone else calls them.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 16:47:57 UTC