W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > June 2013

Re: policy-uri proposal (ACTION 97)

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:12:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78hUvCoy-L7mQHfeQiuCQod-Xz4wHdMBaL65GowGKKJnBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Cc: Daniel Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
>> :-( It seems -uri is also used for the JSON resource. So if we only
>> add it as alias it would not solve that, though we could avoid
>> introducing more -uri in 1.1 I suppose. It really blows we don't use
>> the correct term consistently.
>
> I suspect the issue is that different people have different opinions
> about which term is more correct.  :)

Sure, but given the precedent of url(), type=url, document.URL,
WebSocket.url, EventSource.url, new URL(), ... URI is just the wrong
term for web-exposed names.


--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 10:12:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:02 UTC