- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:17:39 -0700
- To: ""Martin J. Dürst"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <PUBLIC-IRI@w3.org>
On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:03 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>
> The "willful violation" in particular is somewhat repulsing. While
> it may have been well-intended ("watch out, we use this term
> differently"), it reads more like "we wanted to create havoc, and we
> did". That's not the way to write specs, in my view.
Do you think it would be helpful (or accurate) to label divergent use
of the term "URL" as something other than "willful violation"?
>
> The XML specs at one point used "Human Readable Resource Identifier"
> for what's now called "Legacy Extended Internationalized Resource
> Identifier". Maybe we can help HTML5 to move in a similar direction.
> But I don't think terminology issues should be on the critical path;
> more like: If we can solve these on the go, we'll do so.
There is considerable distaste for the alphabet soup of different
terms for resource identifiers (URL, URN, URI, IRI, XRI, LEIRI...) and
a great reluctance to introduce yet another term for what most people
still colloquially call a "URL". If there was a great naming
suggestion, I'm sure it would be considered, but I don't think "HRRI"
would fly.
This may be easier to resolve once there is a suitable IETF spec for
HTML5 to reference.
Regards,
Maciej
Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 19:32:51 UTC