- 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>
* 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