- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:29:08 +0200
- To: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, William Chan (ιζΊζ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>, Tobin Titus <tobint@microsoft.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>, Tony Gentilcore <tonyg@chromium.org>
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com> wrote: > Understood, that's fine. But, I don't think that should block us from using > "protocol" in NT/RT: (a) it's the right name, (b) the URL version is no > longer accurate or useful in most cases. We should nudge developers towards > using the NT/RT version, and keeping the same name is actually a plus in > that regard. When it comes to URLs, protocol refers to the bit before the ":". In the platform's API landscape, I think that's the only thing "protocol" has meant thus far. And getting at the bit before the ":" is still useful. It's just wildly different from what you're talking about. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 17:29:35 UTC