- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:52:29 +0200
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, uri@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com> wrote: > I'm more or less with Roy on this, I think. The sad fact is that, IMO, > neither the status quo nor any of these proposals will be truly evocative > for the average non-technical user of the Web. In my experience, many such > people are intimidated by any of the three letter initialisms we're > discussing, including URL (regardless of how rationalized). Ok, well I put the idea out there. A lot of people liked it, but a few who I have great respect for didn't, so I'm going to go quiet for a while and experiment with talking about URI and URL to people over the next year. I'll be back in 2011 if I'm still in dispair about wider adoption of 'URI', but I won't stir things up any more for more! > That being the case, I think we might as well stick with the terminology > that has, as Roy says, been negotiated with some care among those who > prepared the current normative specifications. If someone wants to promote > a bit more widely some truly suggestive term (Web address strikes me as > imperfect, but probably the best of the lot), well maybe. Just rotating the > preferences among 3 letter techy-codes every decade or so seems to me a > losing proposition. YMMV. I like 'Web address', I think it'll take a bit of concerted effort to persuade everyone that physical things, people etc can also have them, but if that's the chosen terminology I'll have a go :) ...oooOO( I still don't know whether I'm supposed to say IRI amongst civilians...) cheers, Dan
Received on Monday, 19 April 2010 20:53:03 UTC