RE: Draft [URL] reference update to informative text

My understanding of the TAG's position based on our discussion at the last meeting is we would prefer to just reference https://url.spec.whatwg.org/.

The proposed text seems problematic in three ways:

1. Most importantly, it contains "URL (URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/url/), E. Arvidsson, M.[tm] Smith. W3C." which is explicitly what the TAG was recommending against.

2. Less importantly, it seems like it's trying to quash some sort of blog post into a reference. Maybe this is necessary for political reasons, but from a technical perspective, all that HTML needs with regard to referencing URL is "URL (URL: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/), A. van Kesteren. WHATWG." HTML's coupling to URL does not necessitate adding a blog post to the spec explaining how everyone could possibly want to use URLs, and in fact the blog-post-within-a-reference creates confusion by talking about "mapping directly to the terminology of [RFC3986] and [RFC3987]", which are actively incorrect documents for implementers or developers to read with regard to how to URLs are handled in HTML.

3. Least importantly, it uses the incorrect http:// URL instead of the correct https:// one.

-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Lafon [mailto:ylafon@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 03:04
To: www-tag@w3.org
Subject: FYI: Draft [URL] reference update to informative text

About the URL reference discussion we had during the last f2f, See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2014Oct/0002.html

If you have technical feedback...
Thanks,

--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 15:48:36 UTC