- From: Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:54:00 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Actually i like this one better: "Conventions for Web Addresses: URLs, URIs and IRIs in markup" On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com> wrote: > I am in favor of keeping "URIs and IRIs" in the title. we could even say > > "Web Addresses: markup conventions for URLs, URIs and IRIs" > > It's about time to introduce the terms to a wider (HTML5 ) audience as > it will lead to a more coherent use of the terms in W3C > recommendations. > > Best, > Marco > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:41:30 +0100, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>> That makes sense... I think the connections to HTML 5 are mostly >>> there to make it easy on reviewers who are familiar with the URL >>> material in the HTML 5 draft; I don't think there's any lasting >>> need for them. >>> >>> Any suggestions for the title? maybe something like: >>> >>> "Web Addresses: markup conventions for URIs and IRIs" >> >> Just "Web Addresses" would be fine. I personally don't classify >> XMLHttpRequest and CSS as markup. I'd expect other APIs that might be >> splitted from HTML5 to use this terminology as well and they would not be >> markup either. Alternatively you could do s/markup/Web/ but I don't think >> everyone would appreciate the implication. >> >> I have to say I much preferred just using URL though. Most authors are >> familiar with that and know what it means. And the few that now the >> distinction and the old meaning can read the fine print in the >> specification. >> >> >> -- >> Anne van Kesteren >> http://annevankesteren.nl/ >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 15:54:43 UTC