- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:25:33 +1000
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
We just need to be clear what we mean an even if we use "URL", we should probably explain at the beginning briefly what we mean by that. Also, we need to be consistent. Silvia. On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Philip Jägenstedt<philipj@opera.com> wrote: > I'd say there's a very slim chance of HTML5 actually changing to another > terminology and there's really no practical reason why MF should either in > my opinion. > > Philip > > On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:18:46 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Again another interesting email from html5 / public-html. >> >> I think we probably need to discuss our use of the word "URL" or "URI" >> and possibly replace it with "web address". >> >> Cheers, >> Silvia. >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> >> Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:58 AM >> Subject: change "URL" to "web address" throughout the HTML 5 spec >> (Issue-56 urls-webarch) >> To: public-html@w3.org >> >> >> The integration of the [WEBADDRESSES] spec into HTML 5 hasn't >> gone as I expected; the purpose of choosing the term "web address" >> was to replace all occurrences of "URL" by "web address" >> in the HTML 5 spec, not to do this: >> >> "2.5.1 Terminology >> A URL is a string used to identify a resource. >> >> A URL is a valid URL if it is a valid Web address as defined by the Web >> addresses specification. [WEBADDRESSES] >> >> ... >> >> Note: The term "URL" in this specification is used in a manner distinct >> from the precise technical meaning it is given in RFC 3986. Readers >> familiar with that RFC will find it easier to read this specification if >> they pretend the term "URL" as used herein is really called something >> else altogether. This is a willful violation of RFC 3986. [RFC3986]" >> >> -- http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#terminology-0 >> >> The choice of terms here doesn't impact interoperability; it's >> an editorial choice. Is there really call for a "willful violation" >> over an editorial choice? >> >> 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 ). >> >> >> 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. >> >> -- >> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ >> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E >
Received on Saturday, 22 August 2009 08:26:33 UTC