7392 2009-08-21 07:40:24 +0000 Please use some term other than "URL" for Web Addresses 2010-10-04 14:46:58 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified PC All VERIFIED WONTFIX NE, TrackerIssue P2 normal --- 1 mjs mike ian julian.reschke lmm mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 26576 0 mjs 2009-08-21 07:40:24 +0000 The term URL has a technical meaning that doesn't match the HTML5 spec. Even though the spec points this out, some find this confusing or objectionable. Please consider using an alternate term, such as "Web Address" or "HREF" (following IRIbis) or "HURL" (for HTML URL) or anything that doesn't conflict with IETF specs in this area. Such a change would be cosmetic but it would not be obviously harmful and would apparently remove objections. 26578 1 ian 2009-08-21 07:47:52 +0000 "URL" is what everyone outside the standards world calls them. The few people who understand what on earth IRI, URN, URI, and URL are supposed to mean and how to distinguish them have demonstrated that they are able to understand such complicated terminology and can deal with the reuse of the term "URL". Others, who think "URL" mean exactly what the HTML5 spec defines it as, have not demonstrated an ability to understand these subtleties and are better off with us using the term they're familiar with. The real solution is for the URI and IRI specs to be merged, for the URI spec to change its definitions to match what "URL" is defined as in HTML5 (e.g. finally defining error handling as part of the core spec), and for everyone to stop using terms other than "URL". Thus, marking this WONTFIX. 26926 2 julian.reschke 2009-09-08 06:37:30 +0000 The "real" solution, as proposed by Ian Hickson, has been discussed, is controversial, and is not going to happen. As far as I can tell, we should either re-open this bug, or track the issue in the Tracker (not sure whether it is covered by http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/56) 26927 3 mike 2009-09-08 07:09:30 +0000 Reassigned to me pending discussion of what further action is needed. 26928 4 mjs 2009-09-08 07:10:45 +0000 Since Ian has given his disposition, I think a tracker issue would be appropriate. It would probably be worthwhile to have a separate issue for the naming, as opposed to for updating the spec reference. 26929 5 mike 2009-09-08 07:44:24 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > Since Ian has given his disposition, I think a tracker issue would be > appropriate. It would probably be worthwhile to have a separate issue for the > naming, as opposed to for updating the spec reference. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/78 26930 6 mike 2009-09-08 07:59:06 +0000 moved to Tracker http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/78 33304 7 mjs 2010-03-14 14:49:52 +0000 This bug predates the HTML Working Group Decision Policy. If you are satisfied with the resolution of this bug, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html This bug is now being moved to VERIFIED. Please respond within two weeks. If this bug is not closed, reopened or escalated within two weeks, it may be marked as NoReply and will no longer be considered a pending comment. 33699 8 lmm 2010-03-18 17:35:36 +0000 I added comments to Bug 8116 (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8116 ) which doesn't seem to be linked here. Note that change proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0882.html for ISSUE-56 (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/56) at least explains that this specification uses "URL" in ways different than the rest of the web community (and also, by using URL for relative forms) in ways that are not even common in the public literature. Note also that the IETF document draft-ietf-iri-3987bis (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis/) contains advice about using "URL" in formal documents, and there is a bug report http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/9 which discusses that issue. Since the response to this bug was "We (the standards community) really need to give up on this naming nonsense and just go back to URL, which is what everyone else calls them.", it would seem appropriate get the standards community to follow that advice. See also http://masinter.blogspot.com/2010/03/resources-are-angels-urls-are-pins.html for some history.