- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:57:26 +0200
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Dan Brickley wrote: > > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >> Re: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/23-minutes#item08 >> >> HTML5 does define what a valid URL is versus how it should be parsed >> by user agents. Also, a valid URL is either a "valid" URI reference or >> "valid" IRI reference. Specifically, valid URL does not allow more >> productions than RFC3986 and RFC3987 do. >> >> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/infrastructure.html#valid-url >> has the details. > > Interesting. Does this mean that URNs are URLs now? That'll be a fun one > to explain :) URNs are URIs (see RFC3986, Section 1.1.3). The term URL, as used in HTML5, refers to URIs and IRIs; so this is not really a change from HTML 4.01 (which said "URI"). The problems with HTML5's definition of "URL" are IMHO: - potentially causes confusion by using the term "URL" - makes validity of URLs dependent on the document encoding they appear in - uses the wrong approach for explaining how to handle invalid stuff (the prose currently suggests extending the RFC3986/7 grammar productions, while a simple mapping would be poissible without ever talking about those productions) BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 11 October 2008 10:58:12 UTC