W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2003

Re: URI/URI ref distinction (was on "How to Compare Uniform Resource Identifiers")

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:04:23 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030115110236.00ab1300@127.0.0.1>
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

I found TimBL's posting to be very illuminating:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0043.html

I think there's an important identifier/reference distinction to be 
maintained here.

Unfortunately, I am not aware that this led to any kind of consensus about 
URI/URIref terminology.

#g
--

At 09:45 AM 1/14/03 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:

>Dan Connolly writes:
> >The TAG has decided to use the term "URI" to include
> >relative URI references. CRITICAL.
>
>If the TAG has decided to blur the semantics of URIs and URI references,
>then I suggest that the TAG justify that decision in a formal document.
>URIs are not a superset of URI references, and the behavior of the two
>is very different.  URI references may be representation-bound, while
>URIs quite plainly are not.
>
>I agree with Dan that this is a CRITICAL issue, but suspect that the TAG
>has it backwards - and dangerously so - if Dan is correct here in his
>claim about TAG decisions.
>
>I would like to ask the TAG to consider the ramifications of this
>distinction as an issue for further discussion.  It appears to lurk at
>the foundations of Web Architecture.
>
>--
>Simon St.Laurent
>Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
>Errors, errors, all fall down!
>http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 09:22:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:15 GMT