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

Re: policy-uri proposal (ACTION 97)

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:51:16 +0200
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3q8ms8lmm16vfe1aq3qbe3goiratnptivc@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>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.

>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.

If you asked the IETF about that, you would likely hear that the lesson
we should have learned from the URL/URN/URI/IRI/... epos is that it's a
bad idea to name protocol elements after other protocol elements. Here,
`report-uri` should rather have been something like `report-to` to avoid
naming confusion and instability. Your own list should tell you as much,
you have `document.URL` and then `WebSocket.url`; is `WebRTC.Url` next?
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 17:51:47 UTC

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