W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > June 2003

RE: draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-02

From: Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:01:21 +0100
Message-ID: <54A600C436EA694581B93E4BD4D4788A06B73AA1@elslonexc004.wins.epress.co.uk>
To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@apache.org>, "'uri@w3.org'" <uri@w3.org>

I didn't see any feedback on this comment I posted earlier so am reposting
the comment. It seems significant and worthy of some reply.

The following passage from end 2nd para, section 1.1.3, strikes me as very
peculiar:

	'This specification deprecates use of the term "URN" for anything
but URIs in the "urn" scheme [RFC2141]. This specification also deprecates
the term "URL".'

Given that a URI scheme may be classified as a 'locator', a 'name' or both,
how can the term 'URL' be deprecated while maintaining currency of the the
term 'URN'? This seems to introduce an imbalance into the glossary of terms.
Surely in the contemporary view the only term of any significance is 'URI'.
IMO the term 'URN' should be deprecated wholesale along with the term 'URL'
otherwise we introduce an inequitable skewering of the URI space. The 'urn'
scheme just marks out a certain class of URIs which have a particular
semantics - i.e. 'persistence'. Nothing more.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Hammond

Advanced Technology Group, Elsevier Ltd
32 Jamestown Road, London, NW1 7BY, UK

<tel:+44-20-7424-4445>
<mailto:t.hammond@elsevier.com>
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 05:01:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:31 GMT