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

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

From: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:30:15 -0700
Message-ID: <i2u30b660a21004190930r209c0747y4d0a14f8e331b80e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, uri@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
I think this is a great idea, and high time. For non-mavens, there should be
one general term for any of the current set of {URI, URL, URN, URI, IRI},
and all of the other future flavors that nobody outside of a small community
can keep straight.

And that general term should be the one term that everyone (not just mavens)
is familiar with: URL.

Mark

— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —


On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 20:01, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>
> Seconded!
>
>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>
>
Received on Monday, 19 April 2010 16:30:53 UTC

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