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

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:15:06 +0200
Message-ID: <o2z1f2ed5cd1004190015x54322026hf1a936d0df8c1675@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>

On 18 April 2010 11:52, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> 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...
> cheers,
> Dan

Received on Monday, 19 April 2010 07:15:41 UTC

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