W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2009

Re: "Web addresses in HTML 5" for review (ISSUE-56 urls-webarch)

From: Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:59:46 -0400
Message-ID: <844a8dbf0903180759y650440cat477cc3ef0dddfbc9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
I am in favor of keeping "URIs and IRIs" in the title. we could even say

 "Web Addresses: markup conventions for URLs, URIs and IRIs"

It's about time to introduce the terms to a wider (HTML5 ) audience as
it will lead to a more coherent use of the terms in W3C
recommendations.

Best,
Marco

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:41:30 +0100, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> That makes sense... I think the connections to HTML 5 are mostly
>> there to make it easy on reviewers who are familiar with the URL
>> material in the HTML 5 draft; I don't think there's any lasting
>> need for them.
>>
>> Any suggestions for the title? maybe something like:
>>
>>  "Web Addresses: markup conventions for URIs and IRIs"
>
> Just "Web Addresses" would be fine. I personally don't classify
> XMLHttpRequest and CSS as markup. I'd expect other APIs that might be
> splitted from HTML5 to use this terminology as well and they would not be
> markup either. Alternatively you could do s/markup/Web/ but I don't think
> everyone would appreciate the implication.
>
> I have to say I much preferred just using URL though. Most authors are
> familiar with that and know what it means. And the few that now the
> distinction and the old meaning can read the fine print in the
> specification.
>
>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 15:00:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:43 UTC