On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:45:30 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > 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. It would however be consistent with WebSocket.URL, <input type="url">, url("image"), EventSource.URL, HTMLDocument.URL, etc. Keeping the author-facing APIs the same would be a good thing IMO. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 08:14:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:02 UTC