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.


--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 17:03:36 UTC

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