Re: [fileapi] urn -> URL

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> I don't see a reason why we should call the member urn. URL is much more 
> consistent with other parts of the Web platform and works just as well. 
> I thought we agreed on this previously so I'm just mentioning it here 
> since it seems to have changed again.

"URN" seems to be fine as long the identifier actually *is* a URN (which 
it currently is).

That being said, and as mentioned before, I'm still not convinced that 
the spec needs to recommend a specific URI scheme. We have talked about 
that before; is there something in the mailing list archives that 
actually summarizes why this is needed?

Finally, *at this time* (while it *is* a URN) renaming to "URL" would be 
inconsistent with the relevant base specs, and produce even more 
confusion. The right thing to do here is to stay consistent with WebArch 
and RFC 3986, thus fix the terminology in HTML5.

BR, Julian

Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 06:46:08 UTC