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

URI -> URL when talking about 'moved ...'

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 22:30:26 PDT
Message-Id: <338BC2F2.72CC@parc.xerox.com>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Cc: spreitzer.PARC@xerox.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3339
> I'm reading RFC2068, and am puzzled by the qualification "If the new URI is a
> location" that appears in the description of responses 301--303.  How is a
> server to determine whether a URI is a "location" (is that a technical term?
> meaning what?), and what URI-like thing is given to the client (and where)
> otherwise?

I think the use of URI instead of URL here was some kind of "politically
correct speech". Whatever we think about using identifiers instead of
locations generally for links, there's a real confusion when you're
about how something has 'moved', since presumably, it has 'moved' to
another 'location' rather than another 'location-independent

So I think this will get clearer if we just change URI to URL in 10.3.2
and following for 301 and 302. I'm a little less certain about 303 Moved
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 1997 22:32:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC