Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs

Tim Bray (tbray@textuality.com)
Thu, 23 Oct 1997 18:00:15 -0700


Message-Id: <3.0.32.19971023180006.0090c590@pop.intergate.bc.ca>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 18:00:15 -0700
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, timbl@w3.org, fielding@ics.uci.edu,
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Subject: Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs
Cc: uri@bunyip.com, lassila@w3.org, swick@w3.org, jeanpa@microsoft.com,

At 06:10 PM 23/10/97 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:

I think Dan stated the problem well.  Just as a point of information,

>The XML spec currently says URL all the way, but there
>	are a lot of folks who are interested in URN
>	developments who think this prohibits the
>	use of URNs in XML. They call for s/URL/URI/
>	in the XML specs. But then... what to cite?
>	RFC1630, even with its informational status
>	and bugs?
>http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xml-970807.html

Up till now, the XML WG has been fairly untroubled in deciding that
we should be consistent and use URL, until such time as there are
ubiquitous, interoperable implementations of one or more of these
other schemes.  Our worry about using URIs would be not so much 
readability, as the danger of vendors and subcultures starting
to use URNs or FPIs or something, thus losing interoperability,
while claiming conformance on the basis that these things are in
some way URIs.  We have this mantra that every XML processsor should
be able to read every XML document, always.

On the other hand, nobody wants to stand in the way of achieving
progress in Web addressing.

Cheers, Tim Bray
tbray@textuality.com http://www.textuality.com/ +1-604-708-9592