- From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
- Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2025 12:08:32 +1100
- To: "Kent Watsen" <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
- Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "tom petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com>, "art@ietf.org" <art@ietf.org>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>
On Fri, Dec 5, 2025, at 10:50, Kent Watsen wrote: > It's best for us to call/name it for what it is, thus negating the need > to extend it in the future. > If calling it a "URL" is accurate, then that's a win for all. A URL is a URI that is also a locator. That is, if you can resolve it, it will lead you to something. Those are definitely more likely to use the same authority form that HTTP does, but there isn't a firm guarantee. The only safe container for a URI generically is a sequence of bytes or characters (the difference between each is important in many cases, but not here). The same is generically true for URLs as well, though under certain narrower definitions it might be safe to carry them in other ways. See https://url.spec.whatwg.org/ for an example of one such narrow definition. However, that definition includes file: and blob: URLs, which are more complicated than you might like.
Received on Friday, 5 December 2025 01:08:57 UTC