W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

RE: URI or URL? [was: PEP draft delayed -- diffs so far attached]

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 13:41:01 -0800
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F48502566659@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: 'Dan Connolly' <connolly@w3.org>, timbl@w3.org
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (E-mail)" <frystyk@w3.org>, khare@w3.org
All the documents you referenced agree that URI is the appropriate term
to use as it describes both URL and URN. I also agree that anything that
looks like scheme:stuff should have one name, in fact it has already
been presented, it is URI. As for what the world knows, that is for
marketing literature not protocol specification documents.
		Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Dan Connolly [SMTP:connolly@w3.org]
> Sent:	Wednesday, March 12, 1997 1:15 PM
> To:	Yaron Goland; timbl@w3.org
> Cc:	http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (E-mail);
> khare@w3.org
> Subject:	URI or URL? [was: PEP draft delayed -- diffs so far
> attached]
> 
> 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
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 1997 13:49:38 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:31 EDT