- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:45:37 -0400
- To: "Justin James" <j_james@mindspring.com>
- Cc: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com> wrote: >>> Somebody suggested "HTML URL" on uri@w3.org - I think that's a better >>> option because its makes the distinction more apparent. > >> So far that's the best candidate I have heard of. > > Most people can't tell the difference between a URI and a URL and use the > terms interchangeably. Heck, I can barely discern the distinction most of > the time. Do we really want to make things even more confusing? That's my point. We *do* want them to be able to at least recognize there's a difference, which is why calling HTML-embedded URIs, URLs, isn't such a great idea IMO. Mark.
Received on Friday, 27 June 2008 18:46:18 UTC