- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:13:31 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010, Dan Brickley wrote: > > I'll keep this short. The official term for Web identifiers, URI, isn't > widely known or understood. The I18N-friendly variant IRI confuses many > (are we all supposed to migrate to use it; or just in our specs?), while > the most widely used, understood and (for many) easiest to pronounce, > 'URL' (for Uniform Resource Locator) has been relegated to 'archaic > form' status. At the slightest provocation this community dissapears > down the rathole of URI-versus-URN, and until this all settles down we > are left with an uncomfortable disconnect between how those in-the-know > talk about Web identifiers, and those many others who merely use it. > > As of yesterday, I've been asked "but what is a URI?" one too many > times. I propose a simple-minded fix: restore 'URL' as the most general > term for Web identifiers, and re-interpret 'URL' as "Universal Resource > Linker". Most people won't care, but if they investigate, they'll find > out about the re-naming. This approach avoids URN vs URI kinds of > distinction, scores 2 out of 3 for use of intelligible words, and is > equally appropriate to classic browser/HTML, SemWeb and other technical > uses. What's not to like? The Web is all about links, and urls are how > we make them... I think that would be a fantastic idea. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 18 April 2010 20:14:00 UTC