W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > August 2017

Re: All you need is URL

From: Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:25:16 +0200
Cc: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B82E217D-390A-443D-A810-EB460AA1A73E@gmail.com>
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>

> On 15 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:
> We agreed to use the definition in the HTML 5 spec, which is an acceptable normative reference for URL.

Correct, and the only normative reference in W3C's HTML is the URL Standard by WhatWG:
  https://www.w3.org/TR/html/references.html#biblio-url <https://www.w3.org/TR/html/references.html#biblio-url>

> However, there are times where we may want/need a URI or IRI, such as when we need something that isn’t actually a “link” on the web (eg. a namespace).

That's where I disagree: the URL reference we agreed upon does obsolete URI or IRI, and it isn't just about "link" on the web.
So when, exactly, would we need to use "URI" or "IRI", except perhaps in an explanatory note alongside the [URL] reference?

> I don’t recall anyone suggesting a specific use case for URN.

URNs were mentioned several times in call discussions on IRC.

My email was to debunk stuff like "URI = URN + URL", or "URN is not a URL", or "URL is only for a “link” on the web", which is untrue with the normative reference we agreed to use.


Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 07:25:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:52:16 UTC