- From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:13:47 +0100
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Smylers wrote: > Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) writes: > >> Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> >>> In which case, why not use a term that doesn't have a precise >>> definition, but is well understood in general, like "web address" ? >> because loose ("imprecise") terminology has no place in a standard. > > But if HTML 5 adopts the term, then HTML 5 will define it -- most > precisely! > > The problem is that we have a definition, but no term for it. Attempts > to re-use an already defined word (but with a slightly different > meaning) have yielded objections from those already familiar with the > current meaning. > > So if we don't re-define an existing term, then by necessity it will be > a term that, until now, hasn't had a precise definition. I have no argument with any of these points : it was not clear to me that Charles was proposing to /define/ "web address" rather than to continue to use it in some loose and ill-defined way ... Philip TAYLOR
Received on Sunday, 29 June 2008 09:14:36 UTC