Re: heads-up about "new" URLs section in HTML5 editor's draft

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:
>  The term "URL" in this specification is used in a manner
>  distinct from the precise technical meaning it is given in RFC
>  3986. Readers familiar with that RFC will find it easier to read
>  this specification if they pretend the term "URL" as used herein
>  is really called something else altogether.

RFC 3986 doesn't define URL, so there's no problem from that POV.  But
I do think a lot of implementers might make the mistake of assuming
that html5:URL == rfc3986:URI, and, say, reuse URI libraries when they
should be using an HTML-aware one.

Somebody suggested "HTML URL" on uri@w3.org - I think that's a better
option because its makes the distinction more apparent.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com

Received on Friday, 27 June 2008 17:07:02 UTC