- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 15:41:57 -0700
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: arun@mozilla.com, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 3. The renaming of the property to 'url' also suggests that we should >>>>> cease to consider an urn:uuid scheme. >>>>> >>>> I'm not sure that one follows from the other. The property's called >>>> 'url' >>>> because that's what will be familiar to authors, but the magic string >>>> that >>>> goes inside of it could still be a URN. > > FWIW, I'm a developer and sticking a URN in a .url property really doesn't > seem familiar at all - even a '.id' property with an id that was > consistently generated would be much better. > > If the scope of the identifiers is limited to a single ua, on a single > machine, and specific to that single ua (as in I can't expect to request the > identifier outside of the ua that provided it on x machine and get the same > results) then I (personally) can't see why there's a need for anything more > than a simple unique identifier (sha1 or suchlike) > > And if the above is true, then surely this would negate the need for .url, > registering a new URI scheme, or URN namespace - and all in save you all > from lots of headaches & time wasted, close the issue, and save the > developer community from years of further confusion (or should i say > conflated understanding of what a URL is), and benefit the entire web by > saving us from yet another (predominantly unneeded) URN namespace or URL > scheme. Note that the important point of these URNs isn't that they are identifiers, but rather that you can point a <iframe>.src, or a <img>.src, or a #myElement { background-url: url(...) } at them. In all useful use cases brought up so far, the website author will never look at the actual string to see what it contains, but rather just treat it as a url and load data from it. The intended use for it is things like: <img id=preview> <input type=file onchange="document.getElementById('preview').src = this.files[0].url"> In this context, calling the string an "identifier" misses the point IMHO. (btw, the above example should work fine in nightly firefox builds) / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 22:42:51 UTC