RE: Confusing use of "URI" to refer to IRIs, and IRI handling in the DOM

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Brian Smith wrote:
> > Instead, the term "IRI" should be used throughout, except 
> > where only URIs are allowed. In addition, whenever
> > non-URI IRIs are forbidden, there should be an
> > explanation of why they are forbidden.
> 
> Since the way that these values are treated doesn't actually 
> follow IRI rules, I've used the term "URL" instead.

Don't you see how nonsensical that statement is? What you call a "URL"
doesn't follow the rules for URLs either. The "U" in "URL" stands for
"uniform" yet this draft demands that we process "URL"s in HTML differently
from the way they are processed according to any other specification and
differently from the way they are processed by the vast majority of
software.

A specification should be clearly written. Redefining terminology that is
already well-known by the reader is confusing and counterproductive. Coining
a new term (e.g. "HTML Resource Locator"/"HRL") for what you are trying to
do will result in a clearer specification. When somebody sees "URL" they
think "Hey, I already know what a URL is." Whenever *I* see "URL" I think
"Why can't I use an IRI here?" When somebody sees "HRL" they will think "WTF
is a HRL?" which will motivate them to read the definition.

Regards,
Brian

Received on Saturday, 28 June 2008 14:16:39 UTC