- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:06:14 -0400
- To: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
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