4 ms·
To add to the mess, the WHATWG now maintains a "URL" spec that covers URIs and declares URIs an outdated term for URLs: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/ https://url
by Macha 2y ago
To add to the mess, the WHATWG now maintains a "URL" spec that covers URIs and declares URIs an outdated term for URLs: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/ https://url.spec.whatwg.org/
So now we have a URL spec from WHATWG that says URI is an old term for URLs, and a URI spec from the IETF that says that URL is just a term for a certain subset of URIs.
- paulddraper 2y ago> URI and IRI are just confusing. WhatWG wasn't wrong.....
- Retr0id 2y ago> the IETF that says that URL is just a term for a certain subset of URIs This is the more broadly accepted definition, right?
- amyjess 2y ago> declares URIs an outdated term for URLs The term I would use is "a distinction without a difference", but they're not entirely wrong.
- immibis 2y agoThat may be true within their bounded context. WhatWG is the web/HTML working group, and a URL is something you can type in the address bar, and this tells the browser how to find it, although the browser's configuration may be used implicitly in the process. URIs the browser can't use to locate something are useless in the context of the web. For example news:comp.lang.c may be considered a URN, but when the browser is configured with a news server, it can also locate it, so for web purposes it's a URL.
- JimDabell 2y ago> URIs the browser can't use to locate something are useless in the context of the web. The obvious counterexample to this is the mailto: URI scheme. It has no location but it is still a useful thing to link to on the web.