- From: Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:59:46 -0400
- 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