W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2010

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:01:43 +0900
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: uri@w3.org, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vbd2oztg64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 05:13:31 +0900, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> 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.


Anne van Kesteren
Received on Monday, 19 April 2010 03:02:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:14 UTC