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 19:00:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78g40DmSznSix34rMs7_71LXp-KJEKtCcdUHxk5BUZ+_sQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
> 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.

Sure. That works for me too by the way.


> 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?

Seems WebRTC has RTCIceServer.url though that's a dictionary and not
an interface. Well, and it uses URL.createObjectURL() for MediaStream.
(The reason url is lowercase is because it's newer and people thought
the single occurrence of uppercase was not worthy of being enshrined
everywhere forever in addition to which some browser already started
shipping with url lowercased I believe. I agree that's not great for
consistency, but at least the name is the same.)


--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 18:00:43 UTC

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