Message-Id: <email@example.com> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 17:08:27 -0700 To: Dan Connolly <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Keith Moore <email@example.com> From: Tim Bray <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs Cc: Larry Masinter <email@example.com>, At 06:11 PM 24/10/97 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >So if the URL/URN distinction is that way, please, PLEASE >show me! Please give an example where the use of the >term URN vs URL vs URI in the HTML, HTTP, XML, or RDF >specs will break things. I don't think Dan was asking me, but 1. if the XML spec says URL and somebody sends me a doc with an external reference to urn:ietf:rfc:1661 I probably won't be able to resolve it, but at least I have some self-defense because I can make a strong case that it's not a URL, so I can tell the sender he's not XML-conformant. 2. If the XML spec says URI and the same thing happens, then I have no defense, because the sender can say "That's a URN, and a URN is a URI, and the spec says I can give you URIs." I.e. conformance without interoperability. I think this qualifies as breakage as a direct result of using URI rather than URL, but then I'm simple-minded.