- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:19:17 +0300
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Replay of IRC comments in email as encouraged: On Aug 20, 2009, at 17:58, Dan Connolly wrote: > Please take out the "willful violation" note and replace the > term URL by web address (or another of your choosing; > "hypertext reference" met with approval of several interested > people http://esw.w3.org/topic/IETF_HTML5_Meeting_March_2009 ). FWIW, my most preferred term is "URL", but my second most preferred term is "Web address". I think hypertext reference, IRI [reference], URI [reference], LEIRI [reference], etc. would all be worse here. > For reference, the term URL is defined in an IETF standard this way: > > ... The > term "Uniform Resource Locator" (URL) refers to the subset of URIs > that, in addition to identifying a resource, provide a means of > locating the resource by describing its primary access mechanism > (e.g., its network "location"). > > -- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt > > and URIs are defined as absolute URIs, so strings such as > "../xyz" are not URIs (they're URI references) and hence > they're not URLs. The definition of "web address" does > include them, meanwhile. Trying to kill a wildly successful term like URL (as opposed to updating the spec to match the success) is on terminology level similar to trying to kill a wildly successful format like HTML on the technology level instead of updating it. People who can read a "URL" on the side of a bus and type it to an address bar and people who author links with "URLs" far outnumber RFC lawyers. (Fortunately, though, trying to kill a term from the specs isn't as bad as trying to kill a format.) "../xyz" is a "relative URL", and "http://example.com/xyx" is an "absolute URL" in common usage. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 15:20:01 UTC