- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:56:40 +0200
- To: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:40:47 +0200, Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com> wrote: > Brian Smith writes: > >> Ian Hickson wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Brian Smith wrote: >> > >> > > ... the term "IRI" should be used throughout ... >> > >> > Since the way that these values are treated doesn't actually follow >> > IRI rules, I've used the term "URL" instead. >> >> What you call a "URL" doesn't follow the rules for URLs either. ... >> Redefining terminology that is already well-known by the reader is >> confusing and counterproductive. ... When somebody sees "URL" they >> think "Hey, I already know what a URL is." > > Indeed, most people will. > > But most people's concept of precisely what constitutes a URL is pretty > fuzzy. It isn't clear that what they think of on reading "URL" matches > the existing definition but not the HTML 5 one. The nuances between > those definitions probably don't even register with many people, meaning > that the change doesn't affect them: their general idea of what a URL is > matches the HTML 5 definition just as closely as it does the original. > > And I'd've thought that for many people "URL" simply means "the internet > address you can type in a web browser" (since this is by far the most > common situation in which people encounter URLs) -- in which case, their > beliefs about what a URL is comes from browser behaviour, not a spec. > For these people the HTML 5 definition is actually an improvement, since > it will result in the spec matching their existing beliefs! In which case, why not use a term that doesn't have a precise definition, but is well understood in general, like "web address" ? cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://www.opera.com
Received on Saturday, 28 June 2008 20:57:26 UTC