URI or URL? [was: PEP draft delayed -- diffs so far attached]
Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:14:57 -0600
Yaron Goland wrote:
>
> Abstract - Should it not be "each extension with a URI" not URL? This
> comment generalizes to the rest of the document.
And to the rest of the IETF world, as far as I'm concerned.
> The proposed use of a
> URL actually seems a perfect example of when a URN (if they existed =)
> should be used. Although I note that in the Protocol Header definition
> you do use URI.
Oops. I mean to be consistent.
I hope that some day soon, we can all agree that one of those
terms is dead and that the other includes all strings of the form
scheme:stuff
As to my opinion on which of URL and URI should survive,
I've said all I care to say on the matter.
See the W3C addressing page[1] and glossary[2] if you're curious.
The popular jargon follows the NCSA Mosaic documentation: the
word knows these things as URLs. The standards track
documents (RFC1738 and RFC1808) speak of URLs.
I'm tracking the URN WG[3] and the URL syntax and process
discussions (hey: where's the WG charter for those?) and
I'll follow their lead, unless this working group, its
chair, or the applications area director wants to tell
me which one to use.
[1] http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Addressing/#terms
[2] http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Architecture/Terms
[3] http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/urn-charter.html
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Protocols/PEP/
--
Dan Connolly, W3C Architecture Domain Lead
<connolly@w3.org> +1 512 310-2971
http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
PGP:EDF8 A8E4 F3BB 0F3C FD1B 7BE0 716C FF21