On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:45:30 +0100, Julian Reschke <[email protected]>
wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I don't see a reason why we should call the member urn. URL is much
more consistent with other parts of the Web platform and works just as
well. I thought we agreed on this previously so I'm just mentioning it
here since it seems to have changed again.
"URN" seems to be fine as long the identifier actually *is* a URN (which
it currently is).
That being said, and as mentioned before, I'm still not convinced that
the spec needs to recommend a specific URI scheme. We have talked about
that before; is there something in the mailing list archives that
actually summarizes why this is needed?
Finally, *at this time* (while it *is* a URN) renaming to "URL" would be
inconsistent with the relevant base specs, and produce even more
confusion. The right thing to do here is to stay consistent with WebArch
and RFC 3986, thus fix the terminology in HTML5.
It would however be consistent with WebSocket.URL, <input type="url">,
url("image"), EventSource.URL, HTMLDocument.URL, etc. Keeping the
author-facing APIs the same would be a good thing IMO.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
