Use the term URL instead of IRI in the (API) spec

[lanthaler]

Originally raised by @darobin in #200:

• Probably not something you can do anything about, but you folks must be the last people on Earth still talking about IRIs.
• Seriously, you might want to state somewhere at the beginning of the document that "Throughout this specification, the term 'URL' refers to a IRI as used in RDF." There are maybe five people who know what an IRI is, and half of them think it's a silly idea. No developer will have a clue.

[msporny]

Unless we have a very good reason to use IRI that resonates with Web developers, we should probably use URL and put the "Throughout this specification, the term 'URL' refers to a IRI as used in RDF." text in there as @darobin suggests. I think there is a good technical reason to use IRI, but I don't think that reason resonates with Web developers. We've had this sort of push-back every time we try to use IRI in a spec across working groups and community groups.

PROPOSAL: Include the text "Throughout this specification, the term 'URL' refers to an IRI as used in RDF." and use the term URL everywhere in both specifications.

[gkellogg]

+0

[lanthaler]

I'm fine with using URL instead. I think the proposed text confuses more than it helps. Who will know where to look for IRI as used in RDF? What does it even mean? RDF is an abstract model, which concrete syntax are you referring to?

[lanthaler]

RESOLVED: Include the text "Throughout this specification, the term 'URL' means IRI as defined in RFC3987. The reason we use URL is because it is more familiar to Web developers." and use the term URL everywhere in both specifications.

[lanthaler]

RESOLVED: JSON-LD Processors do not modify URLs other than to translate between relative and absolute URLs. Specifically, they do not implement the URL processing rules as outlined in the HTML5 specification.

[lanthaler]

According the resolutionI've replaced all occurrences of the term "IRI" with "URL" in both specs and included the statement saying that "Throughout this specification, the term URL means IRI as defined in [RFC3987]. The reason we use the term URL instead is because it is more familiar to Web developers."

Unless I hear objections, I will close this issue in 24 hours.

[lanthaler]

_From Pat Hayes:_

I propose that, in the same spirit, we redefine "resolution" to mean "masturbate", but go on using "resolution" as it is more polite.

Pat

PS. If you wish, you may take this to be an objection, but as I have already redefined "objection" to mean "eats spaghetti on Wednesdays", it will not really make a great deal of difference.

[lanthaler]

RESOLVED: Use IRI in the JSON-LD specifications instead of URL.

[gcarothers]

You can convince me that URL is the right term :( IRI vs. URI vs URL is totally stupid and we should just call them all URLs, yes.

[msporny]

+1 @gcarothers
Here's my rant about it on RDF WG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jan/0054.html

[gcarothers]

Sadly I sent my rant before I got yours. Yours is better and more thought out ;)

[gcarothers]

Wife adds "I know what a URL is, what's that other thing? Mommies on the playground know what a URL is."

[sandhawke]

Wow finally read this thread (here and in rdf-wg email). Intense.

Personally, I'd probably go with "Web Address" or "Address" in the spec, and say by "Address" we mean IRI which is a lot like a URL. But given the intensity of that earlier argument, I can see it might be better left alone.