Subject: s/url/web/

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:27:53 -0800

EDITORIAL:

There are a couple of places where we use "uri" in the markup, 
specifically the "atom:uri" element (3.2.2) and the "uri" attribute of 
"atom:generator" (4.2.5).

In both cases they're not actually URIs, they're IRIs, so the name is 
WRONG, except for nobody knows what an IRI is so renaming them "iri" 
would be confusing, and anyhow everyone thinks of URLs not *RIs, but 
naming them "url" would be wrong too, so why don't we actually change 
them to say what they're there for not what their syntax is and use 
"web" in both cases?  -Tim

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:38:55 -0500

Tim Bray wrote:
> WRONG, 

Keeping the name atom:uri is exactly what Martin, author of RFC3987 and 
PaceIRI, suggested.

> except for nobody knows what an IRI is so renaming them "iri" 
> "web" in both cases? 

Sounds good to me. This doesn't light up some religious war, does it?

Robert Sayre

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:50:02 +0900

I think this is definitely worth a try, although it sounds a bit
weird at first (it's not the whole Web, is it?).

Regards,   Martin.

 >In both cases they're not actually URIs, they're IRIs, so the name is 
WRONG, except for nobody knows what an IRI is so renaming them "iri" would 
be confusing, and anyhow everyone thinks of URLs not *RIs, but naming them 
"url" would be wrong too, so why don't we actually change them to say what 
they're there for not what their syntax is and use "web" in both cases?  -Tim

---

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:05:15 +0000

> "web" in both cases?  -Tim

If they're IRIs, then call them that. if nobody knows what an IRI is, 
and we want to foist them, it's up to us to educate. -1 to atom:web

cheers
Bill

---

From: Anne van Kesteren <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:48:02 +0100

> "web" in both cases?  -Tim

Web Forms 2 uses |type="uri"| as well. (It accepts IRIs.)

-- 
  Anne van Kesteren
  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>

---

From: Dan Brickley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 04:24:53 -0500

* Tim Bray <[email-masked]> [2005-03-17 16:27-0800]
> "web" in both cases?  -Tim

+1

Dan

ps. 'email' in the Person construct could also be handled by 'web' (or
'url/uri/iri') using the mailto: scheme, if only multiple of these were 
allowed per person-like-thing.

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:13:06 +0100

>"web" in both cases?  -Tim

We can call those "at" or "about" or "internet" but certainly not "web".
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Dan Brickley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:44:33 -0500

* Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]> [2005-03-18 11:13+0100]
> We can call those "at" or "about" or "internet" but certainly not "web".

While we're at it, we can relive 10-15 years of URN vs URI debates on the 
Atom list instead of shipping product. Are you appealing to some notion of 
'online' versus 'offline' resource? A spec could be cited from the formal 
Atom spec? Such distinctions are notoriously hard to maintain... If you
want to add an implicit (and imho illadviced) notion of
'URI dereferencability' into the spec, it'd be good to see candidate
text for inclusion, rather than doing it via attribute/element name 
choice. Note that the deferencability of identifiers changes over time, 
as infrastructure is deployed (or rots away); eg. DOIs, gopher:, java: URIs...

Dan

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:09:13 +0100

>as infrastructure is deployed (or rots away); eg. DOIs, gopher:, java: URIs...

I do not really understand what you are trying to ask or say here. I
suppose you object to call those elements and attributes anything but
"web" for some reason or you object to the alternate names I suggested.
In case of the latter you seem to somehow think that at/about/internet
suggests what you call "dereferencability" while "web" does not. That
would not make much sense to me, so I fail to get your point.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Dan Brickley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:24:46 -0500

* Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]> [2005-03-18 12:09+0100]
> would not make much sense to me, so I fail to get your point.

Maybe I misread your intent, in that case. You objected strongly
("certainly not...") without giving any supporting reason. Could
you elaborate on the reasoning behind your objection to "web"?

URIs and IRIs are the way we identify things 
(on, in, to and for...) the Web. So "web" to me seems natural. If
the construct is only for identifying a subset of things, then some
other name might be more appropriate. I read you as taking that
latter position.

Dan

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:41:06 -0700

On Friday, March 18, 2005, at 04:24  AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> (on, in, to and for...) the Web. So "web" to me seems natural.

I think the question is which of these is meant by "the web":

a) HTML over HTTP(S), plus images and other things that get rendered in 
HTML documents
b) everything with a URL, and the network those things are accessed over
c) the internet

c) has entered common usage, at least among the general populous, but 
technically, a) or b) would be more accurate.  I've always thought of 
"the web" as a), but while a) is certainly the core of the web, I 
suppose it makes sense to think that "the web" encompasses other things 
that a) is able to connect you to.

---

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:56:15 +0000

> other name might be more appropriate. I read you as taking that

atom:www seems just as natural by that reasoning...

If there is a problem with marking up what used to be URIs and which are 
now IRIs using 'atom:uri' the renaming choice should be then be obvious 
(note, there is a big assumption about there being a problem in the 
first place).

To no-one in particular: trying to ride pet monikers into the spec as 
this stage is bogus.

cheers
Bill

---

From: Dan Brickley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:24:24 -0500

* Antone Roundy <[email-masked]> [2005-03-18 08:41-0700]
> b) everything with a URL, and the network those things are accessed over

I encourage Atom to follow the WebArch REC, let's call it (d),
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#intro
[[
The World Wide Web (WWW, or simply Web) is an information space in which
the items of interest, referred to as resources, are identified by
global identifiers called Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI).
]]

> that a) is able to connect you to.

Yes, I think that's the webarch line too. If HTTP went away, and we all
used ftp:, freenet: or gopher: systems, and wrote our docs in SVG
instead, it'd still be the Web. So (a) is the current core of the Web
only in very pragmatic, market-based terms. 

You're also right that (c) is common usage. I've lately taken to asking
non-geeks about their use of "the Web". Often as not, they respond
with "what, you mean The Internet? yeah, I use that, ...".

Going with Webarch's (d), I think fits with using 'web' within the Atom 
spec... it's neutral in ways that avoid debates that typically chew up
time on the URI mailing list.

Dan

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:27:27 +0100

>you elaborate on the reasoning behind your objection to "web"?

"To specify the author of an entry use the author element. You can then
use the name child element to specify the name of the author, the email
child element to specify the email of the author, and the web child
element to specify the web of the author." That's crazy Frontpage-speak.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Dan Brickley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:07:21 -0500

* Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]> [2005-03-18 18:27+0100]
> element to specify the web of the author." That's crazy Frontpage-speak.

That's because the underlying semantics of the element are vague. The
name matches the current semantics. Shoot something other than the
messenger!

If we mean homepage-or-blog, let's say so. If we mean social security
number, let's say so. If we mean phone number, let's say so. If we mean 
DNAchecksum, lets say so. Currently, all of those things could be
represented in the Web using URIs/IRIs, and could fit in that field
quite nicely.

Dan

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:31:43 +0100

>global identifiers called Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI).

Let's ignore that not all IRIs are URIs and let's assume that this is a
definition of "Web", are you saying that this definition is equivalent
to 'the set of all URIs is the information space "Web"'? If those are
not equivalent I am not sure what you are suggesting here.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Dan Brickley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:42:04 -0500

* Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]> [2005-03-18 19:31+0100]
> not equivalent I am not sure what you are suggesting here.

The definition says, in effect, "The Web is an information space in 
which we use URIs when identifying things". It does not rule out 
other, complementary, identification mechanisms, nor does it equate the 
Web with any specific set of entities. It is an over-arching
abstraction, not a set of URI-named things, nor the set of URIs. I guess
it is (and I cringe at the word), a bit like "cyberspace". Nobody really 
expects there to be real answers to "how many things are 'in' cyberspace?", 
since that is over-stretching the metaphor. Same with Web, I think. 

Dan

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:08:32 +0100

* Dan Brickley wrote:
>Web with any specific set of entities.

Right, nor does it say that an item of interest identified by a "Uniform
Resource Identifier" is in this information space. People not familiar
with IRIs do not consider items of interest on their local hard drive
identified by a file:/// URL items in the information space "web" and
would consequently think that using <author><web>file:///</web></author>
is improper use of the element. That's not the case, so we have

  <uri> -- wrong
  <iri> -- unknown to many users
  <web> -- misleading to many users

I suggest confronting users with something unknown is better than
misleading them.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: David Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:18:16 +0000

> I suggest confronting users with something unknown is better than

How about something with less meaning attached to it, such as "ref"?

-- 
Dave

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:44:31 -0800

+1 to the "just pick something and ship it" position

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Henry Story <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:07:15 +0100

> How about something with less meaning attached to it, such as "ref"?

+1
or "resource"?

-.764 on "web" from me, it just does not seem quite right.

---

From: Joe Gregorio <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:45:12 -0500

> Keeping the name atom:uri is exactly what Martin, author of RFC3987 and

This is the reason I'm +1 on keeping it 'atom:uri'. 

   -joe

-- 
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:11:00 -0500

> +1 to the "just pick something and ship it" position

Indeed. Could it possibly matter less? We have more important things to 
talk about.

For "web":
Bray, Sayre, Duerst, Brickley

For "iri":
de hÓra, Höhrmann

For "uri":
Gregorio, van Kesteren

Robert Sayre

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:19:05 +0100

> Bray, Sayre, Duerst, Brickley

-1 on "iri", +1 for "uri", -0 on "web" from me.

Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:19:45 +0100

>Bray, Sayre, Duerst, Brickley

"resource", "ref", "about", etc. work for me, but not any of those.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:25:20 +0000

Add me to the "uri" camp.

Graham

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:23:04 +0100

My first tendency is towards "pick anything", but if there is to be
discussion I'll happily throw in a couple of cents.

Isn't the question: what is this thing we're naming? 

Using atom:uri/atom:iri is only marginally better than saying
atom:string - it describes how the identifier is put together, it
tells you nothing about what's being identified.
 
I don't think we want atom:id (or similar) because the URI/IRI is only
related to the construct, it isn't an identifier for it.

I've pasted the relevant bits of the spec below. One is an IRI
"associated with" a person, the other an IRI "relevant" to the
generator.

Shouldn't the name of the attribute reflect the relationship between
the Atom construct and the resource being identified?

But both atom:associated and atom:relevant seem pretty clunky. 

So why not atom:related?

Cheers,
Danny.

3.2.2  The "atom:uri" Element

The "atom:uri" element's content conveys an IRI associated with the
   person.  Person constructs MAY contain an atom:uri element, but MUST
   NOT contain more than one.  The content of atom:uri in a Person
   construct MUST be an IRI reference [RFC3987].

4.2.5  The "atom:generator" Element

The atom:generator element MAY have a "uri" attribute whose value
   MUST be an IRI reference [RFC3987].  When dereferenced, that IRI
   SHOULD produce a representation that is relevant to that agent.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: Anne van Kesteren <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:57:19 +0100

> Web Forms 2 uses |type="uri"| as well. (It accepts IRIs.)

Web Forms 2 now uses |type="url"| to be more consistent with CSS2.1. I 
suggest Atom does the same. (Change atom:uri to atom:url.)

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:07:49 +0000

May I suggest HREF? It's address format and class agnostic.

Graham

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:08:33 -0800

> May I suggest HREF? It's address format and class agnostic.

If I hadn't firmly promised myself that I would keep my damn mouth shut 
about this, I'd be +1. -Tim

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:01:25 +0900

Hello Dan,

The problem I have with using "web" is that there is a "pars pro
toto" (or probably rather the other way) problem here. I.e.
the Web is defined by *all* the resources identified by an URI/IRI,
whereas the element we are trying to name points to just one of
them.

Given all the proposals, my opinion is currently about as follows:

[wrap up and ship:    +1]

ref/href: +0.8

uri, iri: +0.5

at, about: +0.2

web, internet: +- 0

url: -0.2   (outdated)

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: Anne van Kesteren <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:11:52 +0100

> url: -0.2   (outdated)

It may be outdated, but it is the one everyone is using and it is also 
used by CSS.