On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:45:30 +0100, Julian Reschke <
julian.reschke@...>
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/
