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

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