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 18:03:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78iee_f1dUzMbqixcfbcjrCcWoWp-ty-UKkixT93NyZdYg@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 5:54 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
>> 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.
> I feel like you're picking a choosing your examples.  As a counter
> example, document.documentURI uses the term "URI".

Sure, but document.URL is identical. There's also namespaceURI, but
namespaces are mostly ignored.

> Look, I understand that this is a point of disagreement between you
> and the IETF.

Come on Adam. You have that disagreement with them as much as I do.
But that disagreement is not about terminology, it's about what
parsers of browsers do. The IETF is fine with us using the term URL
for the aforementioned APIs.

Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 17:03:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:33 UTC